Podcasts about Roosevelt

US Military Buildup Near Venezuela and Opposition Support for Action. Ernesto Araújo and Alejandro Peña Esclusa discuss the unprecedented US military buildup at the former Roosevelt Roads Naval Base in Puerto Rico, interpreted as preparations for action against Venezuela. Peña Esclusa clarifies that the true Venezuelan opposition, led by María Corina Machado (who won 93% of the primary vote), supports US action against the Maduro drug cartel. Araújo asserts that this is viewed regionally as a "crusade against organized crime," not an invasion, and would be welcomed by people tired of instability. This credible threat is already pressuring Venezuelan military officials to negotiate Maduro's exiIT. 1902 TRINIDAD

US Military Buildup Near Venezuela and Opposition Support for Action. Ernesto Araújo and Alejandro Peña Esclusa discuss the unprecedented US military buildup at the former Roosevelt Roads Naval Base in Puerto Rico, interpreted as preparations for action against Venezuela. Peña Esclusa clarifies that the true Venezuelan opposition, led by María Corina Machado (who won 93% of the primary vote), supports US action against the Maduro drug cartel. Araújo asserts that this is viewed regionally as a "crusade against organized crime," not an invasion, and would be welcomed by people tired of instability. This credible threat is already pressuring Venezuelan military officials to negotiate Maduro's exiIT. 1902 CARACAS

Last time we spoke about the fall of Wuhan. In a country frayed by war, the Yangtze became a pulsing artery, carrying both hunger and hope. Chiang Kai-shek faced a brutal choice: defend Wuhan to the last man, or flood the rivers to buy time. He chose both, setting sullen floodwaters loose along the Yellow River to slow the invaders, a temporary mercy that spared some lives while ripping many from their homes. On the river's banks, a plethora of Chinese forces struggled to unite. The NRA, fractured into rival zones, clung to lines with stubborn grit as Japanese forces poured through Anqing, Jiujiang, and beyond, turning the Yangtze into a deadly corridor. Madang's fortifications withstood bombardment and gas, yet the price was paid in troops and civilians drowned or displaced. Commanders like Xue Yue wrestled stubbornly for every foothold, every bend in the river. The Battle of Wanjialing became a symbol: a desperate, months-long pincer where Chinese divisions finally tightened their cordon and halted the enemy's flow. By autumn, the Japanese pressed onward to seize Tianjiazhen and cut supply lines, while Guangzhou fell to a ruthless blockade. The Fall of Wuhan loomed inevitable, yet the story remained one of fierce endurance against overwhelming odds.   #174 The Changsha Fire 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. In the summer of 1938, amid the upheaval surrounding Chiang Kai-shek, one of his most important alliances came to an end. On June 22, all German advisers to the Nationalist government were summoned back; any who refused would be deemed guilty of high treason. Since World War I, a peculiar bond had tied the German Weimar Republic and China: two fledgling states, both weak and only partially sovereign. Under the Versailles Treaty of 1919, Germany had lost extraterritorial rights on Chinese soil, which paradoxically allowed Berlin to engage with China as an equal partner rather than a traditional colonizer. This made German interests more welcome in business and politics than those of other Western powers. Chiang's military reorganization depended on German officers such as von Seeckt and von Falkenhausen, and Hitler's rise in 1933 had not immediately severed the connection between the two countries. Chiang did not share Nazi ideology with Germany, but he viewed Berlin as a potential ally and pressed to persuade it to side with China rather than Japan as China's principal East Asian, anti-Communist partner. In June 1937, H. H. Kung led a delegation to Berlin, met Hitler, and argued for an alliance with China. Yet the outbreak of war and the Nationalists' retreat to Wuhan convinced Hitler's government to align with Japan, resulting in the recall of all German advisers. Chiang responded with a speech praising von Falkenhausen, insisting that "our friend's enemy is our enemy too," and lauding the German Army's loyalty and ethics as a model for the Chinese forces. He added, "After we have won the War of Resistance, I believe you'll want to come back to the Far East and advise our country again." Von Falkenhausen would later become the governor of Nazi-occupied Belgium, then be lauded after the war for secretly saving many Jewish lives. As the Germans departed, the roof of the train transporting them bore a prominent German flag with a swastika, a prudent precaution given Wuhan's vulnerability to air bombardment. The Japanese were tightening their grip on the city, even as Chinese forces, numbering around 800,000, made a stubborn stand. The Yellow River floods blocked northern access, so the Japanese chose to advance via the Yangtze, aided by roughly nine divisions and the might of the Imperial Navy. The Chinese fought bravely, but their defenses could not withstand the superior technology of the Japanese fleet. The only substantial external aid came from Soviet pilots flying aircraft bought from the USSR as part of Stalin's effort to keep China in the war; between 1938 and 1940, some 2,000 pilots offered their services. From June 24 to 27, Japanese bombers relentlessly pounded the Madang fortress along the Yangtze until it fell. A month later, on July 26, Chinese defenders abandoned Jiujiang, southeast of Wuhan, and its civilian population endured a wave of atrocities at the hands of the invaders. News of Jiujiang's fate stiffened resolve. Chiang delivered a pointed address to his troops on July 31, arguing that Wuhan's defense was essential and that losing the city would split the country into hostile halves, complicating logistics and movement. He warned that Wuhan's defense would also be a spiritual test: "the place has deep revolutionary ties," and public sympathy for China's plight was growing as Japanese atrocities became known. Yet Chiang worried about the behavior of Chinese soldiers. He condemned looting as a suicidal act that would destroy the citizens' trust in the military. Commanders, he warned, must stay at their posts; the memory of the Madang debacle underscored the consequences of cowardice. Unlike Shanghai, Wuhan had shelters, but he cautioned against retreating into them and leaving soldiers exposed. Officers who failed in loyalty could expect no support in return. This pep talk, combined with the belief that the army was making a last stand, may have slowed the Japanese advance along the Yangtze in August. Under General Xue Yue, about 100,000 Chinese troops pushed back the invaders at Huangmei. At Tianjiazhen, thousands fought until the end of September, with poison gas finally forcing Japanese victory. Yet even then, Chinese generals struggled to coordinate. In Xinyang, Li Zongren's Guangxi troops were exhausted; they expected relief from Hu Zongnan's forces, but Hu instead withdrew, allowing Japan to capture the city without a fight. The fall of Xinyang enabled Japanese control of the Ping-Han railway, signaling Wuhan's doom. Chiang again spoke to Wuhan's defenders, balancing encouragement with a grim realism about possible loss. Although Wuhan's international connections were substantial, foreign aid would be unlikely. If evacuation became necessary, the army should have a clear plan, including designated routes. He recalled the disastrous December retreat from Nanjing, where "foreigners and Chinese alike turned it into an empty city." Troops had been tired and outnumbered; Chiang defended the decision to defend Nanjing, insisting the army had sacrificed itself for the capital and Sun Yat-sen's tomb. Were the army to retreat again, he warned, it would be the greatest shame in five thousand years of Chinese history. The loss of Madang was another humiliation. By defending Wuhan, he argued, China could avenge its fallen comrades and cleanse its conscience; otherwise, it could not honor its martyrs. Mao Zedong, observing the situation from his far-off base at Yan'an, agreed strongly that Chiang should not defend Wuhan to the death. He warned in mid-October that if Wuhan could not be defended, the war's trajectory would shift, potentially strengthening the Nationalists–Communists cooperation, deepening popular mobilization, and expanding guerrilla warfare. The defense of Wuhan, Mao argued, should drain the enemy and buy time to advance the broader struggle, not become a doomed stalemate. In a protracted war, some strongholds might be abandoned temporarily to sustain the longer fight. The Japanese Army captured Wuchang and Hankou on 26 October and captured Hanyang on the 27th, which concluded the campaign in Wuhan. The battle had lasted four and a half months and ended with the Nationalist army's voluntary withdrawal. In the battle itself, the Japanese army captured Wuhan's three towns and held the heartland of China, achieving a tactical victory. Yet strategically, Japan failed to meet its objectives. Imperial Headquarters believed that "capturing Hankou and Guangzhou would allow them to dominate China." Consequently, the Imperial Conference planned the Battle of Wuhan to seize Wuhan quickly and compel the Chinese government to surrender. It also decreed that "national forces should be concentrated to achieve the war objectives within a year and end the war against China." According to Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Seiya Matsuno, Hirohito authorized the use of chemical weapons against China by specific orders known as rinsanmei. During the Battle of Wuhan, Prince Kan'in Kotohito transmitted the emperor's orders to deploy toxic gas 375 times between August and October 1938. Another memorandum uncovered by Yoshimi indicates that Prince Naruhiko Higashikuni authorized the use of poison gas against the Chinese on 16 August 1938. A League of Nations resolution adopted on 14 May condemned the Imperial Japanese Army's use of toxic gas. Japan's heavy use of chemical weapons against China was driven by manpower shortages and China's lack of poison gas stockpiles to retaliate. Poison gas was employed at Hankou in the Battle of Wuhan to break Chinese resistance after conventional assaults had failed. Rana Mitter notes that, under General Xue Yue, approximately 100,000 Chinese troops halted Japanese advances at Huangmei, and at the fortress of Tianjiazhen, thousands fought until the end of September, with Japanese victory secured only through the use of poison gas. Chinese generals also struggled with coordination at Xinyang; Li Zongren's Guangxi troops were exhausted, and Hu Zongnan's forces, believed to be coming to relieve them, instead withdrew. Japan subsequently used poison gas against Chinese Muslim forces at the Battle of Wuyuan and the Battle of West Suiyuan. However, the Chinese government did not surrender with the loss of Wuhan and Guangzhou, nor did Japan's invasion end with Wuhan and Guangzhou's capture. After Wuhan fell, the government issued a reaffirmation: "Temporary changes of advance and retreat will not shake our resolve to resist the Japanese invasion," and "the gain or loss of any city will not affect the overall situation of the war." It pledged to "fight with even greater sorrow, greater perseverance, greater steadfastness, greater diligence, and greater courage," dedicating itself to a long, comprehensive war of resistance. In the Japanese-occupied rear areas, large armed anti-Japanese forces grew, and substantial tracts of territory were recovered. As the Japanese army themselves acknowledged, "the restoration of public security in the occupied areas was actually limited to a few kilometers on both sides of the main transportation lines." Thus, the Battle of Wuhan did not merely inflict a further strategic defeat on Japan; it also marked a turning point in Japan's strategic posture, from offense to defense. Due to the Nationalist Army's resolute resistance, Japan mobilized its largest force to date for the attack, about 250,000 personnel, who were replenished four to five times over the battle, for a total of roughly 300,000. The invaders held clear advantages in land, sea, and air power and fought for four and a half months. Yet they failed to annihilate the Nationalist main force, nor did they break the will to resist or the army's combat effectiveness. Instead, the campaign dealt a severe blow to the Japanese Army's vitality. Japanese-cited casualties totaled 4,506 dead and 17,380 wounded for the 11th Army; the 2nd Army suffered 2,300 killed in action, 7,600 wounded, and 900 died of disease. Including casualties across the navy and the air force, the overall toll was about 35,500. By contrast, the Nationalist Government Military Commission's General Staff Department, drawing on unit-level reports, calculated Japanese casualties at 256,000. The discrepancy between Japanese and Nationalist tallies illustrates the inflationary tendencies of each side's reporting. Following Wuhan, a weakened Japanese force confronted an extended front. Unable to mount large-scale strategic offensives, unlike Shanghai, Xuzhou, or Wuhan itself, the Japanese to a greater extent adopted a defensive posture. This transition shifted China's War of Resistance from a strategic defensive phase into a strategic stalemate, while the invaders found themselves caught in a protracted war—a development they most disliked. Consequently, Japan's invasion strategy pivoted: away from primary frontal offensives toward a greater reliance on political inducements with secondary military action, and toward diverting forces to "security" operations behind enemy lines rather than pushing decisive frontal campaigns. Japan, an island nation with limited strategic resources, depended heavily on imports. By the time of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Japan's gold reserves,including reserves for issuing banknotes, amounted to only about 1.35 billion yen. In effect, Japan's currency reserves constrained the scale of the war from the outset. The country launched its aggression while seeking an early solution to the conflict. To sustain its war of aggression against China, the total value of military supplies imported from overseas in 1937 reached approximately 960 million yen. By June of the following year, for the Battle of Wuhan, even rifles used in training were recalled to outfit the expanding army. The sustained increase in troops also strained domestic labor, food, and energy supplies. By 1939, after Wuhan, Japan's military expenditure had climbed to about 6.156 billion yen, far exceeding national reserves. This stark reality exposed Japan's economic fragility and its inability to guarantee a steady supply of military materiel, increasing pressure on the leadership at the Central Command. The Chief of Staff and the Minister of War lamented the mismatch between outward strength and underlying weakness: "Outwardly strong but weak is a reflection of our country today, and this will not last long." In sum, the Wuhan campaign coincided with a decline in the organization, equipment, and combat effectiveness of the Japanese army compared with before the battle. This erosion of capability helped drive Japan to alter its political and military strategy, shifting toward a method of inflicting pressure on China and attempting to "use China to control China", that is, fighting in ways designed to sustain the broader war effort. Tragically a major element of Chiang Kai-shek's retreat strategy was the age-old "scorched earth" policy. In fact, China originated the phrase and the practice. Shanghai escaped the last-minute torching because of foreigners whose property rights were protected. But in Nanjing, the burning and destruction began with increasing zeal. What could not be moved inland, such as remaining rice stocks, oil in tanks, and other facilities, was to be blown up or devastated. Civilians were told to follow the army inland, to rebuild later behind the natural barrier of Sichuan terrain. Many urban residents complied, but the peasantry did not embrace the plan. The scorched-earth policy served as powerful propaganda for the occupying Japanese army and, even more so, for the Reds. Yet they could hardly have foreseen the propaganda that Changsha would soon supply them. In June, the Changsha Evacuation Guidance Office was established to coordinate land and water evacuation routes. By the end of October, Wuhan's three towns had fallen, and on November 10 the Japanese army captured Yueyang, turning Changsha into the next primary invasion target. Beginning on October 9, Japanese aircraft intensified from sporadic raids on Changsha to large-scale bombing. On October 27, the Changsha Municipal Government urgently evacuated all residents, exempting only able-bodied men, the elderly, the weak, women, and children. The baojia system was mobilized to go door-to-door, enforcing compliance. On November 7, Chiang Kai-shek convened a military meeting at Rongyuan Garden to review the war plan and finalize a "scorched earth war of resistance." Xu Quan, Chief of Staff of the Security Command, drafted the detailed implementation plan. On November 10, Shi Guoji, Chief of Staff of the Security Command, presided over a joint meeting of Changsha's party, government, military, police, and civilian organizations to devise a strategy. The Changsha Destruction Command was immediately established, bringing together district commanders and several arson squads. The command actively prepared arson equipment and stacked flammable materials along major traffic arteries. Chiang decided that the city of Changsha was vulnerable and either gave the impression or the direct order, honestly really depends on the source your reading, to burn the city to the ground to prevent it falling to the enemy. At 9:00 AM on November 12, Chiang Kai-shek telegraphed Zhang Zhizhong: "One hour to arrive, Chairman Zhang, Changsha, confidential. If Changsha falls, the entire city must be burned. Please make thorough preparations in advance and do not delay." And here it seems a game of broken telephone sort of resulted in one of the worst fire disasters of all time. If your asking pro Chiang sources, the message was clearly, put up a defense, once thats fallen, burn the city down before the Japanese enter. Obviously this was to account for getting civilians out safely and so forth. If you read lets call it more modern CPP aligned sources, its the opposite. Chiang intentionally ordering the city to burn down as fast as possible, but in through my research, I think it was a colossal miscommunication. Regardless Zhongzheng Wen, Minister of the Interior, echoed the message. Simultaneously, Lin Wei, Deputy Director of Chiang Kai-shek's Secretariat, instructed Zhang Zhizhong by long-distance telephone: "If Changsha falls, the entire city must be burned." Zhang summoned Feng Ti, Commander of the Provincial Capital Garrison, and Xu Quan, Director of the Provincial Security Bureau, to outline arson procedures. He designated the Garrison Command to shoulder the preparations, with the Security Bureau assisting. At 4:00 PM, Zhang appointed Xu Kun, Commander of the Second Garrison Regiment, as chief commander of the arson operation, with Wang Weining, Captain of the Social Training Corps, and Xu Quan, Chief of Staff of the Garrison Command, as deputies. At 6:00 PM, the Garrison Command held an emergency meeting ordering all government agencies and organizations in the city to be ready for evacuation at any moment. By around 10:15 PM, all urban police posts had withdrawn. Around 2:00 AM (November 13), a false report circulated that "Japanese troops have reached Xinhe" . Firefighters stationed at various locations rushed out with kerosene-fueled devices, burning everything in sight, shops and houses alike. In an instant, Changsha became a sea of flames. The blaze raged for 72 hours. The Hunan Province Anti-Japanese War Loss Statistics, compiled by the Hunan Provincial Government Statistics Office of the Kuomintang, report that the fire inflicted economic losses of more than 1 billion yuan, a sum equivalent to about 1.7 trillion yuan after the victory in the war. This figure represented roughly 43% of Changsha's total economic value at the time. Regarding casualties, contemporary sources provide varying figures. A Xinhua Daily report from November 20, 1938 noted that authorities mobilized manpower to bury more than 600 bodies, though the total number of burned remains could not be precisely counted. A Central News Agency reporter on November 19 stated that in the Xiangyuan fire, more than 2,000 residents could not escape, and most of the bodies had already been buried. There are further claims that in the Changsha Fire, more than 20,000 residents were burned to death. In terms of displacement, Changsha's population before the fire was about 300,000, and by November 12, 90% had been evacuated. After the fire, authorities registered 124,000 victims, including 815 orphans sheltered in Lito and Maosgang.  Building damage constituted the other major dimension of the catastrophe, with the greatest losses occurring to residential houses, shops, schools, factories, government offices, banks, hospitals, newspaper offices, warehouses, and cultural and entertainment venues, as well as numerous historic buildings such as palaces, temples, private gardens, and the former residences of notable figures; among these, residential and commercial structures suffered the most, followed by factories and schools. Inspector Gao Yihan, who conducted a post-fire investigation, observed that the prosperous areas within Changsha's ring road, including Nanzheng Street and Bajiaoting, were almost completely destroyed, and in other major markets only a handful of shops remained, leading to an overall estimate that surviving or stalemated houses were likely less than 20%. Housing and street data from the early post-liberation period reveal that Changsha had more than 1,100 streets and alleys; of these, more than 690 were completely burned and more than 330 had fewer than five surviving houses, accounting for about 29%, with nearly 90% of the city's streets severely damaged. More than 440 streets were not completely destroyed, but among these, over 190 had only one or two houses remaining and over 130 had only three or four houses remaining; about 60 streets, roughly 6% had 30 to 40 surviving houses, around 30 streets, 3% had 11 to 20 houses, 10 streets, 1% had 21 to 30 houses, and three streets ) had more than 30 houses remaining. Housing statistics from 1952 show that 2,538 houses survived the fire, about 6.57% of the city's total housing stock, with private houses totaling 305,800 square meters and public houses 537,900 square meters. By 1956, the surviving area of both private and public housing totaled 843,700 square meters, roughly 12.3% of the city's total housing area at that time. Alongside these losses, all equipment, materials, funds, goods, books, archives, antiques, and cultural relics that had not been moved were also destroyed.  At the time of the Changsha Fire, Zhou Enlai, then Deputy Minister of the Political Department of the Nationalist Government's Military Commission, was in Changsha alongside Ye Jianying, Guo Moruo, and others. On November 12, 1938, Zhou Enlai attended a meeting held by Changsha cultural groups at Changsha Normal School to commemorate Sun Yat-sen's 72nd birthday. Guo Moruo later recalled that Zhou Enlai and Ye Jianying were awakened by the blaze that night; they each carried a suitcase and evacuated to Xiangtan, with Zhou reportedly displaying considerable indignation at the sudden, unprovoked fire. On the 16th, Zhou Enlai rushed back to Changsha and, together with Chen Cheng, Zhang Zhizhong, and others, inspected the disaster. He mobilized personnel from three departments, with Tian Han and Guo Moruo at the forefront, to form the Changsha Fire Aftermath Task Force, which began debris clearance, care for the injured, and the establishment of soup kitchens. A few days later, on the 22nd, the Hunan Provincial Government established the Changsha Fire Temporary Relief Committee to coordinate relief efforts.  On the night of November 16, 1938, Chiang Kai-shek arrived in Changsha and, the next day, ascended Tianxin Pavilion. Sha Wei, head of the Cultural Relics Section of the Changsha Tianxin Pavilion Park Management Office, and a long-time researcher of the pavilion, explained that documentation indicates Chiang Kai-shek, upon seeing the city largely reduced to scorched earth with little left intact, grew visibly angry. After descending from Tianxin Pavilion, Chiang immediately ordered the arrest of Changsha Garrison Commander Feng Ti, Changsha Police Chief Wen Chongfu, and Commander of the Second Garrison Regiment Xu Kun, and arranged a military trial with a two-day deadline. The interrogation began at 7:00 a.m. on November 18. Liang Xiaojin records that Xu Kun and Wen Chongfu insisted their actions followed orders from the Security Command, while Feng Ti admitted negligence and violations of procedure, calling his acts unforgivable. The trial found Feng Ti to be the principal offender, with Wen Chongfu and Xu Kun as accomplices, and sentenced all three to prison terms of varying lengths. The verdict was sent to Chiang Kai-shek for approval, who was deeply dissatisfied and personally annotated the drafts: he asserted that Feng Ti, as the city's security head, was negligent and must be shot immediately; Wen Chongfu, as police chief, disobeyed orders and fled, and must be shot immediately; Xu Kun, for neglect of duty, must be shot immediately. The court then altered the arson charge in the verdict to "insulting his duty and harming the people" in line with Chiang's instructions. Chiang Kai-shek, citing "failure to supervise personnel and precautions," dismissed Zhang from his post, though he remained in office to oversee aftermath operations. Zhang Zhizhong later recalled Chiang Kai-shek's response after addressing the Changsha fire: a pointed admission that the fundamental cause lay not with a single individual but with the collective leadership's mistakes, and that the error must be acknowledged as a collective failure. All eyes now shifted to the new center of resistance, Chongqing, the temporary capital. Chiang's "Free China" no longer meant the whole country; it now encompassed Sichuan, Hunan, and Henan, but not Jiangsu or Zhejiang. The eastern provinces were effectively lost, along with China's major customs revenues, the country's most fertile regions, and its most advanced infrastructure. The center of political gravity moved far to the west, into a country the Nationalists had never controlled, where everything was unfamiliar and unpredictable, from topography and dialects to diets. On the map, it might have seemed that Chiang still ruled much of China, but vast swaths of the north and northwest were sparsely populated; most of China's population lay in the east and south, where Nationalist control was either gone or held only precariously. The combined pressures of events and returning travelers were gradually shifting American attitudes toward the Japanese incident. Europe remained largely indifferent, with Hitler absorbing most attention, but the United States began to worry about developments in the Pacific. Roosevelt initiated a January 1939 appeal to raise a million dollars for Chinese civilians in distress, and the response quickly materialized. While the Chinese did not expect direct intervention, they hoped to deter further American economic cooperation with Japan and to halt Japan's purchases of scrap iron, oil, gasoline, shipping, and, above all, weapons from the United States. Public opinion in America was sufficiently stirred to sustain a campaign against silk stockings, a symbolic gesture of boycott that achieved limited effect; Japan nonetheless continued to procure strategic materials. Within this chorus, the left remained a persistent but often discordant ally to the Nationalists. The Institute of Pacific Relations, sympathetic to communist aims, urged America to act, pressuring policymakers and sounding alarms about China. Yet the party line remained firmly pro-Chiang Kai-shek: the Japanese advance seemed too rapid and threatening to the Reds' interests. Most oil and iron debates stalled; American businessmen resented British trade ties with Japan, and Britain refused to join any mutual cutoff, arguing that the Western powers were not at war with Japan. What occurred in China was still commonly referred to in Western diplomatic circles as "the Incident." Wang Jingwei's would make his final defection, yes in a long ass history of defections. Mr Wang Jingwei had been very busy traveling to Guangzhou, then Northwest to speak with Feng Yuxiang, many telegrams went back and forth. He returned to the Nationalist government showing his face to foreign presses and so forth. While other prominent rivals of Chiang, Li Zongren, Bai Chongxi, and others, rallied when they perceived Japan as a real threat; all did so except Wang Jingwei. Wang, who had long believed himself the natural heir to Sun Yat-sen and who had repeatedly sought to ascend to power, seemed willing to cooperate with Japan if it served his own aims. I will just say it, Wang Jingwei was a rat. He had always been a rat, never changed. Opinions on Chiang Kai-Shek vary, but I think almost everyone can agree Wang Jingwei was one of the worst characters of this time period. Now Wang Jingwei could not distinguish between allies and enemies and was prepared to accept help from whomever offered it, believing he could outmaneuver Tokyo when necessary. Friends in Shanghai and abroad whispered that it was not too late to influence events, arguing that the broader struggle was not merely China versus Japan but a clash between principled leaders and a tyrannical, self-serving clique, Western imperialism's apologists who needed Chiang removed. For a time Wang drifted within the Kuomintang, moving between Nanjing, Wuhan, Changsha, and Chongqing, maintaining discreet lines of communication with his confidants. The Japanese faced a governance problem typical of conquerors who possess conquered territory: how to rule effectively while continuing the war. They imagined Asia under Japanese-led leadership, an East Asia united by a shared Co-Prosperity Sphere but divided by traditional borders. To sustain this vision, they sought local leaders who could cooperate. The search yielded few viable options; would-be collaborators were soon assassinated, proved incompetent, or proved corrupt. The Japanese concluded it would require more time and education. In the end, Wang Jingwei emerged as a preferred figure. Chongqing, meanwhile, seemed surprised by Wang's ascent. He had moved west to Chengde, then to Kunming, attempted, and failed to win over Yunnan's warlords, and eventually proceeded to Hanoi in Indochina, arriving in Hong Kong by year's end. He sent Chiang Kai-shek a telegram suggesting acceptance of Konoe's terms for peace, which Chungking rejected. In time, Wang would establish his own Kuomintang faction in Shanghai, combining rigorous administration with pervasive secret-police activity characteristic of occupied regimes. By 1940, he would be formally installed as "Chairman of China." But that is a story for another episode.  In the north, the Japanese and the CCP were locked in an uneasy stalemate. Mao's army could make it impossible for the Japanese to hold deep countryside far from the railway lines that enabled mass troop movement into China's interior. Yet the Communists could not defeat the occupiers. In the dark days of October 1938—fifteen months after the war began—one constant remained. Observers (Chinese businessmen, British diplomats, Japanese generals) repeatedly predicted that each new disaster would signal the end of Chinese resistance and force a swift surrender, or at least a negotiated settlement in which the government would accept harsher terms from Tokyo. But even after defenders were expelled from Shanghai, Nanjing, and Wuhan, despite the terrifying might Japan had brought to bear on Chinese resistance, and despite the invader's manpower, technology, and resources, China continued to fight. Yet it fought alone. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. In a land shredded by war, Wuhan burned under brutal sieges, then Changsha followed, a cruel blaze born of orders and miscommunications. Leaders wrestled with retreat, scorched-earth vows, and moral debts as Japanese force and Chinese resilience clashed for months. Mao urged strategy over martyrdom, Wang Jingwei's scheming shadow loomed, and Chongqing rose as the westward beacon. Yet China endured, a stubborn flame refusing to surrender to the coming storm. The war stretched on, unfinished and unyielding.

The Rough Rider rides again—right through the heart of the High Peaks.In this episode, we sit down with nationally known Theodore Roosevelt repriser Joe Wiegand to relive T.R.'s deep Adirondack ties—from youthful birding trips and great-camp visits to the legendary midnight ride that began at Mount Marcy and ended with the oath of office in Buffalo. Joe shares how he “becomes” Roosevelt on stage, why the Adirondacks shaped T.R.'s grit and conservation ethic, and how communities today keep that history alive.What you'll hear in this episode:Becoming T.R. Joe's unlikely path—from a hippie-comedian's son to 400 shows a year as Roosevelt—and the craft behind first-person history.Adirondack origins. Teen summers at Paul Smith's and St. Regis; paddling Saranac & Tupper; and Roosevelt's first publication on Franklin County's summer birds.The night ride. Lake Tear of the Clouds, the dash via Aiden's Lair with driver Mike Cronin, and daybreak at North Creek where news of McKinley's death awaited—history made on Adirondack roads.Conservation President. From doubling national parks to creating national monuments and massively expanding national forests with Gifford Pinchot—T.R.'s enduring legacy.Walk it yourself. Joe's favorite route retracing T.R.: Upper Works → Flowed Lands → Lake Colden → Mount Marcy → Lake Tear—a strenuous, unforgettable line through history.Enjoy the episode—and if it stirs your own “strenuous life,” rate/review the show and share it with a fellow Adirondack history buff.Links & Mentions:Town of Newcomb — details for Teddy Roosevelt Weekend (watch 2026 updates).Visit North Creek / Tannery Pond Center — programming tied to the anniversary.Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site (Buffalo) — inauguration reenactment & naturalization ceremony each Sept. 14.teddyrooseveltshow.com — Joe Wiegand's schedule & performances.medora.com — Gateway to Theodore Roosevelt National Park; summer performances in Medora.Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library (Medora) — slated to open during America250 festivities in July 2026.Great Camp Santanoni — a favorite T.R. haunt (watch for docent programs & carriage-road visits).Lake Tear of the Clouds / Mount Marcy — source of the Hudson and the high point of New York, central to the 1901 story.Aiden's Lair (NY-28N) — iconic staging point on the night ride.Produced by NOVA

Fox News anchor and author Bret Baier joins Mosheh for a revealing conversation about history, politics, and power. His new presidential biography, ⁠To Rescue the American Spirit: Teddy Roosevelt and the Birth of a Superpower⁠, explores how Roosevelt reshaped the presidency—and what his legacy reveals about leadership today. Baier discuses the striking parallels between Roosevelt and Donald Trump, from their battles with the press to their populist instincts and expansive use of executive power. Baier also shares insights from covering Trump up close—from flights aboard Air Force One to the current fights inside Washington over immigration raids, foreign policy, and new media restrictions at the Pentagon. They explore whether Roosevelt's “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach could survive in 2025—and what advice Teddy might offer Trump as he defines his second term. Mosheh Oinounou (⁠@mosheh⁠) is an Emmy and Murrow award-winning journalist. He has 20 years of experience at networks including Fox News, Bloomberg Television and CBS News, where he was the executive producer of the CBS Evening News and launched the network's 24 hour news channel. He founded the @mosheh Instagram news account in 2020 and the Mo News podcast and newsletter in 2022.

When Willard M. Kiplinger launched the groundbreaking Kiplinger Washington Letter in 1923, he left the sidelines of traditional journalism to strike out on his own. With a specialized knowledge of finance and close connections to top Washington officials, Kiplinger was uniquely positioned to tell deeper truths about the intersections between government and business. With careful reporting and insider access, he delivered perceptive analysis and forecasts of business, economic, and political news to busy business executives, and the newsletter's readership grew exponentially over the coming decades. More than just a pioneering business journalist, Kiplinger emerged as a quiet but powerful link between the worlds of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, and used his Letter to play a little-known but influential role in the New Deal. Part journalism history, part biography, and part democratic chronicle, The Insider: How the Kiplinger Newsletter Bridged Washington and Wall Street (University of Massachusetts Press, 2022) offers a well-written and deeply researched portrayal of how Kiplinger not only developed a widely read newsletter that launched a business publishing empire but also how he forged a new role for the journalist as political actor." Rob Wells is is visiting associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. Kavya Sarathy is a Linguistics student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a Marketing Intern for the University of Massachusetts Press. She is currently a political Staff Writer at The Massachusetts Daily Collegian. 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

"Exodus" by Lathe of Heaven from Aurora; "Opera" by Sam Prekop from Open Close; "Vale A Pena" by Sessa from Pequena Vertigen de Amor; "Sayl Damel" by SANAM from Sametou Sawtan; "Alloriagigiit" by bicep feat. sebastian enequist from Takkuuk; "Skylarking" by Bitchin Bajas from Inland Sea; "Harpies" by the utopia strong from Doperider; "Une Annee Sans Soleil" by Marc-Antoine Barbier from Musee Des Especes; "Prism Drift" by Kelly Moran from Don't Trust Mirrors; "Rise and Fall (Beatrice Dillon remix)" by Bendik Giske from Remixed; "Open Space Properties" by M. Sage from Tender - Wading

When Willard M. Kiplinger launched the groundbreaking Kiplinger Washington Letter in 1923, he left the sidelines of traditional journalism to strike out on his own. With a specialized knowledge of finance and close connections to top Washington officials, Kiplinger was uniquely positioned to tell deeper truths about the intersections between government and business. With careful reporting and insider access, he delivered perceptive analysis and forecasts of business, economic, and political news to busy business executives, and the newsletter's readership grew exponentially over the coming decades. More than just a pioneering business journalist, Kiplinger emerged as a quiet but powerful link between the worlds of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, and used his Letter to play a little-known but influential role in the New Deal. Part journalism history, part biography, and part democratic chronicle, The Insider: How the Kiplinger Newsletter Bridged Washington and Wall Street (University of Massachusetts Press, 2022) offers a well-written and deeply researched portrayal of how Kiplinger not only developed a widely read newsletter that launched a business publishing empire but also how he forged a new role for the journalist as political actor." Rob Wells is is visiting associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. Kavya Sarathy is a Linguistics student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a Marketing Intern for the University of Massachusetts Press. She is currently a political Staff Writer at The Massachusetts Daily Collegian. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

When Willard M. Kiplinger launched the groundbreaking Kiplinger Washington Letter in 1923, he left the sidelines of traditional journalism to strike out on his own. With a specialized knowledge of finance and close connections to top Washington officials, Kiplinger was uniquely positioned to tell deeper truths about the intersections between government and business. With careful reporting and insider access, he delivered perceptive analysis and forecasts of business, economic, and political news to busy business executives, and the newsletter's readership grew exponentially over the coming decades. More than just a pioneering business journalist, Kiplinger emerged as a quiet but powerful link between the worlds of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, and used his Letter to play a little-known but influential role in the New Deal. Part journalism history, part biography, and part democratic chronicle, The Insider: How the Kiplinger Newsletter Bridged Washington and Wall Street (University of Massachusetts Press, 2022) offers a well-written and deeply researched portrayal of how Kiplinger not only developed a widely read newsletter that launched a business publishing empire but also how he forged a new role for the journalist as political actor." Rob Wells is is visiting associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. Kavya Sarathy is a Linguistics student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a Marketing Intern for the University of Massachusetts Press. She is currently a political Staff Writer at The Massachusetts Daily Collegian. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

When Willard M. Kiplinger launched the groundbreaking Kiplinger Washington Letter in 1923, he left the sidelines of traditional journalism to strike out on his own. With a specialized knowledge of finance and close connections to top Washington officials, Kiplinger was uniquely positioned to tell deeper truths about the intersections between government and business. With careful reporting and insider access, he delivered perceptive analysis and forecasts of business, economic, and political news to busy business executives, and the newsletter's readership grew exponentially over the coming decades. More than just a pioneering business journalist, Kiplinger emerged as a quiet but powerful link between the worlds of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, and used his Letter to play a little-known but influential role in the New Deal. Part journalism history, part biography, and part democratic chronicle, The Insider: How the Kiplinger Newsletter Bridged Washington and Wall Street (University of Massachusetts Press, 2022) offers a well-written and deeply researched portrayal of how Kiplinger not only developed a widely read newsletter that launched a business publishing empire but also how he forged a new role for the journalist as political actor." Rob Wells is is visiting associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. Kavya Sarathy is a Linguistics student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a Marketing Intern for the University of Massachusetts Press. She is currently a political Staff Writer at The Massachusetts Daily Collegian. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

When Willard M. Kiplinger launched the groundbreaking Kiplinger Washington Letter in 1923, he left the sidelines of traditional journalism to strike out on his own. With a specialized knowledge of finance and close connections to top Washington officials, Kiplinger was uniquely positioned to tell deeper truths about the intersections between government and business. With careful reporting and insider access, he delivered perceptive analysis and forecasts of business, economic, and political news to busy business executives, and the newsletter's readership grew exponentially over the coming decades. More than just a pioneering business journalist, Kiplinger emerged as a quiet but powerful link between the worlds of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, and used his Letter to play a little-known but influential role in the New Deal. Part journalism history, part biography, and part democratic chronicle, The Insider: How the Kiplinger Newsletter Bridged Washington and Wall Street (University of Massachusetts Press, 2022) offers a well-written and deeply researched portrayal of how Kiplinger not only developed a widely read newsletter that launched a business publishing empire but also how he forged a new role for the journalist as political actor." Rob Wells is is visiting associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. Kavya Sarathy is a Linguistics student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a Marketing Intern for the University of Massachusetts Press. She is currently a political Staff Writer at The Massachusetts Daily Collegian. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/journalism

When Willard M. Kiplinger launched the groundbreaking Kiplinger Washington Letter in 1923, he left the sidelines of traditional journalism to strike out on his own. With a specialized knowledge of finance and close connections to top Washington officials, Kiplinger was uniquely positioned to tell deeper truths about the intersections between government and business. With careful reporting and insider access, he delivered perceptive analysis and forecasts of business, economic, and political news to busy business executives, and the newsletter's readership grew exponentially over the coming decades. More than just a pioneering business journalist, Kiplinger emerged as a quiet but powerful link between the worlds of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, and used his Letter to play a little-known but influential role in the New Deal. Part journalism history, part biography, and part democratic chronicle, The Insider: How the Kiplinger Newsletter Bridged Washington and Wall Street (University of Massachusetts Press, 2022) offers a well-written and deeply researched portrayal of how Kiplinger not only developed a widely read newsletter that launched a business publishing empire but also how he forged a new role for the journalist as political actor." Rob Wells is is visiting associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. Kavya Sarathy is a Linguistics student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a Marketing Intern for the University of Massachusetts Press. She is currently a political Staff Writer at The Massachusetts Daily Collegian. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "Reflection" by Dr. Jamie Riches, who is an Assistant Professor at Columbia University and Director of the Hematology Oncology Hospitalist Service. The article is followed by an interview with Riches and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Riches shares a deeply personal narrative, reflecting on the profound personal and professional impact of losing her young family member to cancer, illuminating the intimate intersection of grief, loss, and healing. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Reflection, by Jaime C. Riches, DO If I stand this way, with my shoulders back, my chin lifted, if I hold my breath for a moment, my skin fits my bones just right. Each subtle motion is an effort to make my clavicle more prominent, to manifest my ribs. I feel so ignorant about beauty. I was at the side of her hospital bed as she uncovered herself and asked me to look away. Her eyes, glassy and hollow, met mine. "I'm so ugly right now." It's an interesting piece of practicing medicine, to be an observer of bodies, their look, their feel, and their function. Which lines are strength and which are fatigue…which ones are scars and how they have healed. My words were soft and aching, "You are beautiful" I said, knowing that her skin fits her bones too tight. They are almost all that's left. My 38-year-old cousin's oncologist is my colleague, my friend. When she was diagnosed, he reminded me that there were excellent treatments available. I reminded him that none of them would allow her to see her children start kindergarten. Redefining excellence, I thought, sounded like a cancer center's marketing strategy that just missed the mark. As I looked away, a piece of me splintered. It isn't the same when it's someone you know, when it's someone you love. Maybe I feel shame for underappreciating my own fertile marrow, my fat and muscle, and my own existence. Maybe it's guilt for dedicating my whole life to work that can't save her, for being the one to look her mother in the eye and say she can't be saved. Maybe, just sadness. This lonely world, that only exists right at the bedside, is like a magically devastating song and I am humming the rhythmic asynchrony of being a doctor, and just being. "From where do we yearn?," I wonder. It's from within these little spaces we look to fill the absence of something beautiful. The moments that we're longing to be a part of. We are all mothers—the seven of us now in her room, aunts and cousins united by a last name—by the successes and losses we previously thought unimaginable. We've known the brittle anticipation of a new life, the longing, the joy of spending time, and the sense of simply existing in these spaces. We are the daughters and sisters of firefighters. We are women who know the low bellow of the bagpipes, women who own "funeral clothes." We've tried to disinherit the same shades of blue, and all of our distance has brought us right here, where they're making her comfortable. She knows that her time has been spent. Her eyes are the color of her favorite flower, a yellow rose, and her once sterile room appears almost sunlight by the garden of bouquets. Her mother is sitting by her side, gently moving her fingers across what would be a hairline, the way you would touch a newborn in those moments when you're just realizing you didn't know you could love someone so much. There's a song running through my head, "Golden Slumbers" (The Beatles, Abbey Road, 1969). Even playing in my memory, it gives me chills, starting right beneath my jaw and circulating through my limbs. Once, there was a way To get back homeward Once, there was a way To get back home Sleep, pretty darling, do not cry And I will sing a lullaby Nothing illustrates the frailty of existence like a mother preparing for her inevitable goodbye. Once you see it, you can be certain that biology is imperfect. We're convinced that we're grieving throughout the whole of motherhood, as our babies become grown people of their own, as they live their lives. But it isn't grief. We're simply living a life that is singular, in a series of moments that are final. "Golden Slumbers" doesn't actually seem to end. It just subtly transforms into the next track as if they were one, and before the chills are fully absorbed, you're struck by something totally new…triumphant trumpets. When her breath stopped, it wasn't held. I don't think she realized the bravery it took to leave this world with such grace, to be unlonely. I've been witness to so many punctuated pulseless yawns, but not this one. I wish I knew by which of these wounds am I softened and by which I am hardened, but I don't. They heal, with secondary intention, naturally and slowly, from the inside out. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. Today, I am so thrilled to be joined by Jamie Riches, who is Assistant Professor at Columbia University and Director of the Hematology Oncology Hospitalist Service. We'll be discussing her absolutely gorgeous article, "Reflection." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Jamie, I want to thank you so much for contributing your essay to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, and welcome you to discuss your article. Jamie Riches: Thank you so much for having me. Mikkael Sekeres: I have to say, I was so moved by this and just loved the writing. I don't drop the 'G word', gorgeous, very often when describing pieces, but this was truly moving and truly lovely. Jamie Riches: Thank you. Thank you so much. It was a really deeply personal story to me. Mikkael Sekeres: So I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about yourself. Where are you from, and walk us through your career? For example, where did you do your training? Jamie Riches: Well, I am from Brooklyn, New York, and I did my training at an osteopathic medical school in Harlem called Touro, and my residency training at what used to be called St. Luke's-Roosevelt, and now is Mount Sinai West after many of the New York City mergers. I did a chief resident year at Memorial Sloan Kettering and started my oncology hospitalist career there for many years and have been at Columbia now for three years. Mikkael Sekeres: Wonderful. Isn't it interesting how the institutions of our youth are no longer, and that seems to happen at a faster and faster pace? Jamie Riches: I know. I feel the need to reference the old name sometimes when I'm discussing it. Mikkael Sekeres: Can you tell us a little bit about your own story as a writer? How long have you been writing reflective or narrative pieces? Jamie Riches: I have probably always been a jotter. I think that's for as long as I can remember, and I've enjoyed that process. And I think once I was an undergrad, I studied chemistry, I majored in chemistry, but I really filled up a bunch of elective time with writing classes and learning what I could about the processes of writing. And I guess almost 10 years ago now, I enrolled in the graduate certificate program in Narrative Medicine at Columbia. And that program helped me explore a little bit in terms of form and function and in terms of really relating my writing to my own personal experience as a physician. Mikkael Sekeres: And if I'm not mistaken, the field of narrative medicine was really in part born at Columbia, wasn't it? Jamie Riches: It was. Yeah. Rita Charon was the founder of the practice as a field, yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: And what was it that that experience- what did the formal training teach you that you couldn't have figured out on your own by the iterative process of reading and writing? Jamie Riches: I think there's something to having a group of people critiquing you that really allows you to become better in any field, in any practice. And I think there's something to having a, you know, a relatively safe space to explore different ways of doing something. For example, writing poetry, which I really hadn't done much of before and have done a bit of since. I think having a space where there are both educated critics and experts being able to look at your work and say, "This is working and this isn't," was really helpful for me. Mikkael Sekeres: You know, I've heard with writing, the notion that your first critics should be people you trust and feel as if you're in a safe space with because you're so vulnerable with writing. Even exposing it to relative strangers in a formal course can be, I don't want to use the word damaging, but I guess damaging, or at least get you out of a safe space that you need for writing. Do you have an inner circle that you trust for your writing? Jamie Riches: I do. I do. Mikkael Sekeres: If you feel comfortable doing so, can you tell us what prompted you to write this piece? Jamie Riches: This piece just sort of came out. This piece is real, and it's a real experience, and the processing of this experience has happened on so many different planes for me, and writing is really one of them. And once I sat down and said, "Let me write some of this down," it just kind of poured out. Mikkael Sekeres: Sometimes we write to process. I once heard somebody say that writing is the only time in life when you get a free redo, right, or a do over. We say something or we post something on social, and it's out there in the universe. But with writing, it's very personal, and we can look at a paragraph or a sentence and say, "Gee, that just doesn't feel right," and rework it if it's not communicating exactly what I was hoping it would. The other aspect of writing, of course, is that it allows us to ruminate on something that's just occurred and to try to make sense of it. Do you think that was some basis for writing this? Jamie Riches: I think so. And I think maybe just relating one really specific experience into the greater realm of the work that we do every day, and how that experience both stood on its own, but also is woven into so many other patient encounters and encounters with families. And that's a form of processing, I think, for sure. Mikkael Sekeres: Can you tell us in your own words about the main character in this piece and what was going on? Because you write it in a lovely way that allows the reader to discover what's transpiring gradually, but if you could tell us in your own words, who is this person? Jamie Riches: Yeah. So the person that I'm talking to in some parts of the story and talking about in much of the story is my cousin, Patrice, who was diagnosed with bladder cancer at 38 years old and who has had interactions with the medical field as a patient but is not a physician, is not a medical professional, and so had a lot of questions and a lot of trust and reliance on those of us in the family who had some medical knowledge and experience. And so I wound up being pretty intimately involved in her care as a family member, and that was really a fine line in a lot of ways because my friends and colleagues were the care team, and I was the family member. And many of us have been in that position in many different ways, but it's always a fine line. And she was young, and she was very positive throughout really the course of her illness. She had twins who were two years old at the time of her diagnosis. And I think, I'm a little bit speechless now, as you can see, I think she just was so incredibly graceful, and I think I used this word in the story, throughout the entirety of her illness, which included multiple lengthy hospitalizations where she had spent time away from her children. And I still don't know how she did it with the patience and the thoughtfulness and the love for everyone else that she did. Mikkael Sekeres: You really honor her in this piece and paint such a beautiful portrait of her. In the essay, you write, "It's an interesting piece of practicing medicine to be an observer of bodies, their look, their feel, their function. Which lines are strength and which are fatigue, which ones are scars and how they've healed." It's a beautiful couple of sentences. In this case, you aren't really playing the role of doctor, are you? Can you talk a little bit more about when that line's blurred between being a family member and and the practice of medicine when people are relying on you to help out with their medical care? Jamie Riches: Yeah, I think most of us know this gray area fairly well, and the gravity of the situation really dictates how blurry the line is. And it's true, I wasn't the doctor in this situation, and I had as much information about the scans and the clinical picture and the day to day trajectory and the lab results and the toxicity profiles and the data from the studies that the regimens were approved based on. And that made it impossible to step out of the doctor role or mentality, and I also wasn't making the formal recommendations by any means, but I think it's hard to sort of exempt yourself from that space once you're in it. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. I think we also sometimes don't realize how even the smallest contribution we have in advising somebody about their medical care becomes very, very meaningful and how much those words can have an effect on somebody. I recall my uncle was diagnosed with acute leukemia, so that's right in my bailiwick, of course. And I remember talking with him about transplant and being as neutral as humanly possible about whether he should proceed with the transplant given the characteristics of his leukemia. And months later, after he had gone through the transplant, he said, "You know, I went through this even though you really advised me not to." So as neutral and trying not to sway someone and giving advice as we are, people hear us differently. Did you find that also with your cousin? Jamie Riches: I did. I phoned into one of her oncologist appointments, and her oncologist, who I have to say is wonderful and who I have the utmost respect and really love for, who took great care in taking care of her, went through in detail everything they could about her disease and about treatment options and really explained everything, and took a minute and said, "Okay, do you have any questions?" And my cousin said, "No, whatever Jamie thinks." So I said, "Okay, well, we'll chat a little bit later." But that made me realize, which I think I just hadn't before, how much having an opinion matters. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, and that it's a gift to people when they can cede some of that decision making or some of that knowledge to somebody else and feel as if they don't have to take it on themselves. Jamie Riches: Yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: I want to read one other quote from your piece. I could just reread the whole piece, I enjoyed it so much and keep quoting it. You write, "We've known the brittle anticipation of a new life, the longing, the joy of spending time, the sense of simply existing in these spaces. We are the daughters and sisters of firefighters. We are women who know the low bellow of the bagpipes. Women who own funeral clothes." There's a lot that swims beneath the surface, I think, in that quote, that family members get together at births and deaths, that these become the occasions for the family to get together, that we put on uniforms for them, and that they happen frequently enough that we actually own the uniform to be part of them. Is that what defines us as families? Is that what we've come to? Or how about us as physicians? We own uniforms as physicians also. Are the gatherings, the only gatherings we have with our colleagues at tumor boards when we discuss successes and failures of our patients? Jamie Riches: That's a great question and a great reading, and thank you for these questions. I think every family is different, obviously, and I won't speak for the masses here, but there is a bit of a structure to the events that you're expected to attend and that you're expected to not be absent for, to sort of show up for. And those events are sort- you're right, you know, births and funerals and weddings, and they have a bit of a code to them. And as physicians, it's interesting to think about things like tumor board as the gathering spaces, because although as colleagues we're not families, we are the closest thing to going through some of these moments together. And I think these moments at the bedside, and I use that term so often because I work in the hospital, and I am literally often sitting in a hospital bed holding someone's hand, talking to them. Those are the moments that we feel. We feel them in our bodies. I can feel it right here, and I'm touching my chest when I say that. I don't get that same visceral feeling from looking at most scans, looking at most lab reports, or even having academic conversations with people. And I think that you're right, things like tumor board or even other academic conferences really are the gathering spaces for physicians, but that makes me question if those are the spaces that matter most. Mikkael Sekeres: I think that's a great point also to end our time together. It has been such a true, true pleasure to have Jamie Riches on our JCO Cancer Stories podcast to talk about her gorgeous piece, "Reflection." Dr. Riches is Assistant Professor at Columbia University and Director of the Hematology Oncology Hospitalist Service. Thank you so much again for submitting your piece to us. Jamie Riches: Thank you so much. Mikkael Sekeres: And thank you to our listeners for choosing JCO Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Jamie Riches is an Assistant Professor at Columbia University and Director of the Hematology Oncology Hospitalist Service.

Partiet MoD och nya partiledarens vision för Sverige. Gustaf Rydelius är aktivist, filosof och nybliven partiledare för Partiet MoD. Vi pratar om hur Partiet MoD startade, vilka dess grundprinciper är, fokuset på ekonomisk reform, inspirationerna Roosevelt och Palme, vad partiet skulle göra om det röstas in i riksdagen, hur de planerar att ta sig dit och mycket mer. Besök https://partietmod.se samt @partietmod i sociala medier, https://metasophical.substack.com, Metasophical Creations och Thomas Gjutarenäfve på YouTube, samt hitta Maktens Mekanismer där poddar finns. Yoshi's Podcast hittas på Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube och andra poddplattformar. Länkar i profilen. Prenumerera på https://aljosja.substack.com för att få notiser om nya avsnitt, samt på https://yoshisss.substack.com för att följa mitt skrivande. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit aljosja.substack.com

This week on the Worn & Wound podcast, Zach welcomes Griffin Bartsch back to the Worn & Wound podcast for a new entry in our Collection Update series. Griffin picked up an IWC Mark XX earlier this year, and in this conversation he explains why that was the right watch for him at this particular moment and how he's been living with it over the past several months as a daily driver. And Zach picked up a new watch from Typsim, the Seattle based indie known for their unique lume compound and true gilt dials. The Guide XLH, the watch Zach couldn't resist at Windup, has a funky look to it that's just a little strange, which kind of fits in exactly with what he's been interested in lately. Before Griffin and Zach chat about their new watches, they spend a bit of time recapping the Windup Watch Fair in New York City, the watches they enjoyed from the show, and, yes, the lines to get in the door. Be sure to check back here soon for more from the New York City edition of Windup, including videos of all the panels from Windup weekend.To stay on top of all new episodes, you can subscribe to The Worn & Wound Podcast on all major platforms including Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, and more. You can also find our RSS feed here.And if you like what you hear, then don't forget to leave us a review.If there's a question you want us to answer you can hit us up at info@wornandwound.com, and we'll put your question in the queue. Show Notes Timex Launches “Timex Atelier” with the New Marine M1aBremont's New Direction: Davide Cerrato on Challenges, Vision, and British Watchmaking[VIDEO] Christopher Ward Goes Ultra-Thin with The Twelve 660Lorier and Grand Central Watch Debut the Roosevelt, a Limited Edition in BronzeHands-On: Get a Little Fancy with the Lorier ZephyrIWC Introduces the New Mark XX with an Updated Dial and New MovementTypsim Guide XLHTypsim Makes Watches for the True Watch NerdSubstation StrapsSafe, Sensible, and SaneThe Chair CompanyJim Downey on Conan O'Brien Needs a FriendDowney Wrote That

Fox News Anchor Brett Baier joins us to discuss his new book, To Rescue the American Spirit: Teddy Roosevelt and the Birth of a Superpower. Baier shares what drew him to Roosevelt's story, how the former president helped shape America's global identity, and why his leadership lessons still resonate today.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

6. The Campaign Focuses on the League and Eugene Debs David Pietrusza 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents The campaign featured the Democratic ticket of Cox and Roosevelt against Harding. Though criticized for his "bloviating" speeches, Harding was a charming speaker who avoided trouble. After meeting the frail Woodrow Wilson, Cox was deeply moved and made the League of Nations the central, defining issue for the Democrats—a political miscalculation. Wilson refused to compromise on the League due to a personality flaw that made him unable to accept opposition. Other critical issues included Prohibition, debated as "wet and dry." The segment introduces Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate, whose platform contained concepts like social security that would later become mainstream policy.

1. The Legacy of Woodrow Wilson and the Split over the League of Nations David Pietrusza 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents The 1920 election followed President Woodrow Wilson's debilitating stroke in October 1919, which left him perpetually frail. The core issue became the League of Nations, which Wilson championed but the Republican Party bitterly contested, ultimately causing public skepticism. Wilson held fierce opposition to former President Theodore Roosevelt, who died in January 1919. Roosevelt had detested Wilson's neutrality regarding German aggression. Despite his frail health, Roosevelt would have been the unstoppable Republican candidate had he lived. Wilson reacted to news of Roosevelt's death with shockingly hateful language, revealing the depth of his personal animosity toward his predecessor. 1929 Hoover Inaugural

5. The Democratic Convention: Wilson's Downfall and the Rise of Cox and Roosevelt David Pietrusza 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents Meeting in San Francisco in July 1920, the Democrats grappled with Woodrow Wilson's political liability due to his uncompromising League of Nations stance and desire for a third term. Wilson received only a grim demonstration of support, and his cabinet feared he would die if nominated. The two leading contenders were William Gibbs McAdoo, Wilson's son-in-law, and Ohio Governor John Cox. Due to the Democratic two-thirds rule, the convention took many ballots. Cox, a moderate publisher, secured the nomination after 44 ballots. After meeting with Wilson, Cox abandoned his moderate position to strongly support the League. Franklin D. Roosevelt was chosen as Vice President due to his name recognition, Navy service, and New York connections. 1929 HOOVER INAUGURAL

Trump sends in the wrecking crew—literally. Ben riffs. David Faris talks about Trump's attack on cities and states whose residents dared to vote for Harris. How to respond? The case for a general strike. The No Kings March. And a few words about Platner v Mills in Maine. David is a political science professor at Roosevelt university. Read his essays in The Nation. His views are his own. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

TO RESCUE THE AMERICAN SPIRIT: Teddy Roosevelt and the Birth of a (to be published October 21) is the highly anticipated new book from Bret Baier, #1 New York Times bestselling author and Fox News Channel's Chief Political Anchor. You may be familiar with Baier's previous bestsellers- To Rescue the Constitution, To Rescue the Republic, and the Three Days series-critical and commercial successes praised for blending rich storytelling and history.As the host of the widely watched evening news program Special Report Baier has earned a reputation as a trusted voice, providing clarity on the complex realities of America's crucial moments. Now, in this captivating new biography, Baier turns his attention to Theodore Roosevelt, a president whose extraordinary energy, courage, and vision transformed the United States and thrust America onto the global stage.From his daring charge up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders to his groundbreaking work as a conservationist, Baier paints an unforgettable portrait of Roosevelt as a man shaped by adventure and ideals. TO RESCUE THE AMERICAN SPIRIT brings to life Roosevelt's rise from privileged New York aristocrat to rugged cowboy to tireless reformer and soldier, and finally, to his ascent as one of the most dynamic and key figures in American history. It's a vivid narrative filled with lessons about resilience and pursuing bold ideas during tumultuous times.Already praised as "wonderfully readable" (Walter Isaacson), "expertly researched" (Douglas Brinkley), "an inspiring portrait" (Mark Levin), and "the definitive book on Teddy Roosevelt" (Jay Winik), TO RESCUE THE AMERICAN is a remarkable study of Roosevelt's presidency. Baier shines a light on how Roosevelt modernized the White House, took on entrenched political interests, and asserted the U.S.'s role as a global power through initiatives like the Panama Canal and peace negotiations. These pivotal moments resonate with today's discussions about leadership and national purpose.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-like-it-s-live--4113802/support.

Bret Baier, Fox's Lead Political Anchor and the Executive Editor of Fox News' "Special Report", recently sat down with Fox News Rundown host Dave Anthony to discuss the government shutdown, President Trump's efforts to end the war between Ukraine and Russia, and Bret's latest book, to rescue the American spirit: Teddy Roosevelt And The Birth Of A Superpower. Bret explained the legacy of President Roosevelt, why he was inspired to write about him, and what he and the current president have in common. It was a fascinating conversation about current events and one of America's most impactful presidents. We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear more of this incredible conversation. Today on the Fox News Rundown Extra, we will share Dave Anthony's entire discussion with Fox News' Bret Baier. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Bret Baier, Fox's Lead Political Anchor and the Executive Editor of Fox News' "Special Report", recently sat down with Fox News Rundown host Dave Anthony to discuss the government shutdown, President Trump's efforts to end the war between Ukraine and Russia, and Bret's latest book, to rescue the American spirit: Teddy Roosevelt And The Birth Of A Superpower. Bret explained the legacy of President Roosevelt, why he was inspired to write about him, and what he and the current president have in common. It was a fascinating conversation about current events and one of America's most impactful presidents. We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear more of this incredible conversation. Today on the Fox News Rundown Extra, we will share Dave Anthony's entire discussion with Fox News' Bret Baier. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Bret Baier, Fox's Lead Political Anchor and the Executive Editor of Fox News' "Special Report", recently sat down with Fox News Rundown host Dave Anthony to discuss the government shutdown, President Trump's efforts to end the war between Ukraine and Russia, and Bret's latest book, to rescue the American spirit: Teddy Roosevelt And The Birth Of A Superpower. Bret explained the legacy of President Roosevelt, why he was inspired to write about him, and what he and the current president have in common. It was a fascinating conversation about current events and one of America's most impactful presidents. We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear more of this incredible conversation. Today on the Fox News Rundown Extra, we will share Dave Anthony's entire discussion with Fox News' Bret Baier. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Postponement of the Budapest Meeting and Negotiating with Putin. Cliff May discusses the postponement of the Trump-Putin Budapest meeting, attributing it to Marco Rubio insisting on a cessation of hostilities, which Foreign Minister Lavrov rejected, demanding "all Ukraine." May warns President Trump against being outnegotiated, referencing Stalin's success over Roosevelt and Churchill at Yalta. Putin admires Stalin, who expanded the Russian Empire and engineered the Holodomor famine. May stresses that Russians negotiate only to win, not to compromise. 1921 RED ARMY

SHOW 10-24-25 CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR THE SHOW BEGINS IN THE DOUBTS ABOUT CANADA  IN THE EYES OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. FIRST HOUR 9-915 Pennsylvania Aims to Be AI Capital with US-Made Non-Lithium Batteries. Salena Zito reports on Governor Shapiro's plan to establish Pennsylvania as the AI and data center capital, capitalizing on its energy resources and university system. She focuses on EOS, a Turtle Creek company making non-lithium batteries that are 97% US-made, countering reliance on Chinese lithium. AI data centers require high energy reliability, favoring coal and natural gas infrastructure. Governor Shapiro supports this buildout, including a $22 million grant for EOS. 915-930 Italian Olive Harvest and Historical Vatican-UK Royal Visit. Lorenzo Fiori reports that the olive harvest in Tuscany is expected to be low in quantity due to mosquito damage caused by humidity and rain. However, recent strong winds helped remove damaged olives, potentially ensuring a "very tasty" oil. Fiori also discusses the historical visit of King Charles III to the Vatican's Sistine Chapel to pray with Pope Francis. This event, which Fiori found spectacular, is seen as crucial for restoring dialogue between the Anglican and Catholic Churches after centuries of division. 930-945 Small Business Economy Steady; AI Remains a 'Toy'. Gene Marks reports on the small business economy, noting steady activity among machine parts manufacturers, often preparing for an "onshoring boom." Construction and housing are holding steady but anticipate a future boom as interest rates decline. Tariffs have a muted impact, often absorbed or passed on as separate invoice line items for transparency. Marks demonstrates that AI, despite its advances, is not ready for prime-time business use, failing to accurately generate a requested image of a Yorkshire Terrier hitting a home run. 945-1000 Small Business Economy Steady; AI Remains a 'Toy'. Gene Marks reports on the small business economy, noting steady activity among machine parts manufacturers, often preparing for an "onshoring boom." Construction and housing are holding steady but anticipate a future boom as interest rates decline. Tariffs have a muted impact, often absorbed or passed on as separate invoice line items for transparency. Marks demonstrates that AI, despite its advances, is not ready for prime-time business use, failing to accurately generate a requested image of a Yorkshire Terrier hitting a home run. SECOND HOUR 10-1015 Pacific Palisades Housing Dispute and West Coast Infrastructure Challenges. Jeff Bliss covers West Coast issues, including traffic disruption from new high-speed rail construction between Southern California and Las Vegas. Pacific Palisades residents are protesting state and local plans to use burned-out lots for high-density, multistory affordable housing, fearing the change in community character and increased traffic. Additionally, copper theft from EV charging stations is undermining Los Angeles's zero emissions goals. Homeless encampments are also sparking major brush fire concerns in areas like Malibu and the Sepulveda Basin. 1015-1030 Pennsylvania Pursues Data Center Hub Status, Converting Golf Courses. Jim McTague reports on Pennsylvania's effort to become a data center hub, citing over $90 billion committed investment statewide. York County secured $5 billion, with plans including converting Brierwood Golf Course into a data center. This effort faces public resistance fueled by fears of higher electricity and water prices. McTague notes that consumer spending in Lancaster County is "steady." The conversion of golf courses reflects the decline of golf, seen as a "dinosaur" activity that takes too much time. 1030-1045 Professor Epstein Slams Trump's Economic Policies as 'State Socialism'. Professor Richard Epstein analyzes four Trump administration economic decisions concerning Intel, Nvidia, US Steel, and MP Mining, labeling them forms of state-owned enterprise or "state socialism." Epstein argues that acquiring golden shares or negotiating side deals—like Nvidia paying 15% of China revenue—destroys market value, undercuts competitors, and violates the neutral application of laws. He also critiques the Gaza deal, stating Hamas must be wiped out before any subsequent phases of the agreement can proceed. 1045-1100 Professor Epstein Slams Trump's Economic Policies as 'State Socialism'. Professor Richard Epstein analyzes four Trump administration economic decisions concerning Intel, Nvidia, US Steel, and MP Mining, labeling them forms of state-owned enterprise or "state socialism." Epstein argues that acquiring golden shares or negotiating side deals—like Nvidia paying 15% of China revenue—destroys market value, undercuts competitors, and violates the neutral application of laws. He also critiques the Gaza deal, stating Hamas must be wiped out before any subsequent phases of the agreement can proceed. THIRD HOUR 1100-1115 cMcNamara at War: Loyalty, Secrets, and the Vietnam Conflict. Professor William Taubman discusses Robert McNamara's complicated role during the LBJ years. McNamara enabled the Vietnam War escalation, notably misrepresenting the Gulf of Tonkin incidents to Congress. Despite later secretly opposing the war ("I want so badly to bring the boys home"), he remained silent due to loyalty to Johnson and the presidency. Taubman also details McNamara's role spying on the Kennedys for LBJ and his "loving" relationship with Jackie Kennedy. His post-Pentagon role at the World Bank served as a form of repentance. 1115-1130 cMcNamara at War: Loyalty, Secrets, and the Vietnam Conflict. Professor William Taubman discusses Robert McNamara's complicated role during the LBJ years. McNamara enabled the Vietnam War escalation, notably misrepresenting the Gulf of Tonkin incidents to Congress. Despite later secretly opposing the war ("I want so badly to bring the boys home"), he remained silent due to loyalty to Johnson and the presidency. Taubman also details McNamara's role spying on the Kennedys for LBJ and his "loving" relationship with Jackie Kennedy. His post-Pentagon role at the World Bank served as a form of repentance. 1130-1145 cMcNamara at War: Loyalty, Secrets, and the Vietnam Conflict. Professor William Taubman discusses Robert McNamara's complicated role during the LBJ years. McNamara enabled the Vietnam War escalation, notably misrepresenting the Gulf of Tonkin incidents to Congress. Despite later secretly opposing the war ("I want so badly to bring the boys home"), he remained silent due to loyalty to Johnson and the presidency. Taubman also details McNamara's role spying on the Kennedys for LBJ and his "loving" relationship with Jackie Kennedy. His post-Pentagon role at the World Bank served as a form of repentance. 1145-1200 cMcNamara at War: Loyalty, Secrets, and the Vietnam Conflict. Professor William Taubman discusses Robert McNamara's complicated role during the LBJ years. McNamara enabled the Vietnam War escalation, notably misrepresenting the Gulf of Tonkin incidents to Congress. Despite later secretly opposing the war ("I want so badly to bring the boys home"), he remained silent due to loyalty to Johnson and the presidency. Taubman also details McNamara's role spying on the Kennedys for LBJ and his "loving" relationship with Jackie Kennedy. His post-Pentagon role at the World Bank served as a form of repentance. FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 Trump Administration's Economic Interventionism Questioned as 'State Capitalism'. Veronique de Rugy critiques the Trump administration's economic policies regarding companies like Intel, US Steel, and MP Mining, calling them "state capitalism" or forms of nationalization. She argues that the government acquiring a minority share in Intel creates bad incentives and unfair competitive advantages. Regarding MP Mining, de Rugy notes that guaranteeing a price floor fails to address the underlying issue of government regulation hindering rare earth production in the US.E 1215-1230 The Postponement of the Budapest Meeting and Negotiating with Putin. Cliff May discusses the postponement of the Trump-Putin Budapest meeting, attributing it to Marco Rubio insisting on a cessation of hostilities, which Foreign Minister Lavrov rejected, demanding "all Ukraine." May warns President Trump against being outnegotiated, referencing Stalin's success over Roosevelt and Churchill at Yalta. Putin admires Stalin, who expanded the Russian Empire and engineered the Holodomor famine. May stresses that Russians negotiate only to win, not to compromise. 1230-1245 NASA's Artemis Woes, Chinese Debris, and Global Space Industry Shifts. Bob Zimmerman discusses NASA's Artemis program, noting Administrator Sean Duffy is using a social media feud with Elon Musk as a "shiny object" to distract from the Orion capsule's untrustworthy heat shield risks. Other space issues include China's dangerous rocket debris crashes, some using highly toxic fuels, and European satellite companies consolidating into Project Bromo due to competition. Zimmerman also highlights the discovery of a large asteroid orbiting near Venus and Lockheed Martin's investment in Venus Aerospace's radical rocket engine design. 1245-100 AM NASA's Artemis Woes, Chinese Debris, and Global Space Industry Shifts. Bob Zimmerman discusses NASA's Artemis program, noting Administrator Sean Duffy is using a social media feud with Elon Musk as a "shiny object" to distract from the Orion capsule's untrustworthy heat shield risks. Other space issues include China's dangerous rocket debris crashes, some using highly toxic fuels, and European satellite companies consolidating into Project Bromo due to competition. Zimmerman also highlights the discovery of a large asteroid orbiting near Venus and Lockheed Martin's investment in Venus Aerospace's radical rocket engine design.

Putin's Yalta Model: Out-Negotiating Donald Trump. Cliff May, writing for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, looks at Putin's ambition to out-negotiate Donald Trump by emulating Stalin's success at the 1945 Yalta Conference. Stalin won that round of negotiations against Churchill and Roosevelt, securing Poland and much of Eastern Europe. This outcome was partly facilitated because Roosevelt, who was ill and viewed himself as a mediator, thought he could handle Stalin. The discussion reviews history to see if this model foreshadows future negotiations over Ukraine.

Fox News anchor and author Bret Baier joins Mosheh for a revealing conversation about history, politics, and power. His new presidential biography, ⁠To Rescue the American Spirit: Teddy Roosevelt and the Birth of a Superpower⁠, explores how Roosevelt reshaped the presidency—and what his legacy reveals about leadership today. Baier discuses the striking parallels between Roosevelt and Donald Trump, from their battles with the press to their populist instincts and expansive use of executive power. Baier also shares insights from covering Trump up close—from flights aboard Air Force One to the current fights inside Washington over immigration raids, foreign policy, and new media restrictions at the Pentagon. They explore whether Roosevelt's “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach could survive in 2025—and what advice Teddy might offer Trump as he defines his second term. Mosheh Oinounou (⁠@mosheh⁠) is an Emmy and Murrow award-winning journalist. He has 20 years of experience at networks including Fox News, Bloomberg Television and CBS News, where he was the executive producer of the CBS Evening News and launched the network's 24 hour news channel. He founded the @mosheh Instagram news account in 2020 and the Mo News podcast and newsletter in 2022.

Lionel dives into the controversy surrounding Donald Trump's significant White House renovation including the construction of a 9,000 sq ft ballroom and modernization efforts and debates whether he received full approval, comparing the project to historic upgrades dating back to the Truman and Roosevelt eras. Then, plunge into the addictive world of compulsive gambling, exploring the psychological draw of "the action", the lack of satiety, and the sheer horror of being out of control. Plus, a fascinating tangent into bizarre betting subjects, including the high-speed Basque sport of Jai Alai, fixed Greyhound racing. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this action-packed episode of the Elk Hunt Podcast, host [redacted for anonymity, but based on context] sits down with seasoned elk hunter Jeff Helm to recap his remarkable 2024 season, where he harvested four mature bulls across vastly different states and terrains. Jeff dives into his addiction to hunting Roosevelt elk on the rugged Oregon coast, sharing tales of navigating ancient forests, battling poison oak, and out-hunting locals. The conversation shifts to an epic backcountry Wyoming adventure with llamas, where Jeff, Mark, and Josh adapted to heavy horse hunter pressure, glassed for patterns, and called in bulls using calf sounds and strategic setups. Packed with storytelling, Jeff reveals his adaptable tactics, from spot-and-stalk in Idaho to calf calling in thick timber, emphasizing mental toughness, pre-scouting, and building hunter intuition. Whether you're a beginner or advanced hunter, this episode offers invaluable insights into consistent success on public land.This episode is brought to you by Tricer, they make gear that is Fast. Light. Simple. Tricer is taking the industry by storm, in fact you should have seen the booth at Sheep Show it was packed to the gills everytime I walked by there. It's not just hype though, I have said it for years Drew Miles is mad scientist and the speed at which he is reinventing and solving problems is absolutely insane. More than just tri-pods Drew and the team have some really cool products coming out this year. In fact the new bipod is now available for preorder. Head over to Tricer.com and check out all the new products available for pre-order and get you our name on the list. that new bi-pod is very slick and half the price of similar bi-pods. Also I love the new 360 that allows you to put micro pan on any of your tri-pod head. Check it out Tricer.com and use code TRO to save 10% This episode is brought to you by Tricer they make gear that is Fast Light, simple. Drew and the team have been dominating the lightweight backcountry tripod market but now they are taking on the shooting tripods with some really cool innovation. I absolutly love to see guys like drew crushing it and cant wait to see Tricer dominate the tripod market. Check them out at tricer.com and if you are in the market for a new tripod be sure to use code TRO for 10% off your order.Next, we've got Stone Glacier, the brand that sets the bar for high-performance gear in the backcountry. From their lightweight, durable backpacks to their breathable, water-resistant clothing, Stone Glacier is built to help you go further and stay comfortable, no matter how tough the conditions. If you're serious about your gear and need something that won't hold you back on those long, rugged hunts, check out Stone Glacier at www.stoneglacier.com 0:00 - Intro: Jeff's Impressive Season and Roosevelt Elk Addiction 4:30 - Oregon Coast Challenges: Poison Oak, Mystical Terrain, and Consistency 9:00 - Wyoming Planning: E-Scouting, Llamas, and Switching to Plan B 14:15 - Pre-Hunt Scouting: Driving Roads, Access Points, and Adapting to Pressure 19:45 - Glassing Strategy: Observing Elk and Hunters for Two Days 25:00 - Day 3 Success: Calf Calls Bring in a Herd and First Bull Down 30:30 - Post-Kill Adventures: Grizzly in Camp and Shifting Elk Patterns 35:45 - Josh's Bull: Long-Distance Cow Calls at 1600 Yards 40:15 - Mark's Bull: Afternoon Setups, Storm Chaos, and Challenge Bugles 45:00 - Key Lessons: Adaptability, Choosing Battlefields, and Mental Toughness 50:30 - Idaho and Texas Hunts: Spot-and-Stalk Tactics in Silent Country 55:00 - Advice to Beginners: Learn from Killers, Watch Elk, and Build Intuition Three Key Takeaways Here are three insightful takeaways for the average listener, drawn from Jeff's experiences and advice—focusing on practical, mindset-shifting lessons for consistent elk success: Adaptability Trumps Rigid Tactics: Elk hunting isn't one-size-fits-all; adjust your approach based on terrain, pressure, rut phase, and elk behavior. For example, calf calls worked in Wyoming's backcountry, but spot-and-stalk was key in silent Idaho hunts—avoid overcomplicating with too many tools and stay flexible to turn tough situations into kills. Pre-Scouting and Observation Are Underrated Superpowers: Arrive early to drive roads, assess access, and glass elk patterns without rushing in. Jeff's Wyoming success came from watching horse hunters and elk for days to find unpressured pockets, proving that understanding where elk go (and why) often beats blind calling or chasing. Build Gut Intuition Through Experience and Mentors: Learn from consistent killers like Dan Evans by observing elk habits and avoiding common pitfalls, such as rushing bedded bulls (wait 45-60 minutes to let them settle). Mental toughness keeps you in the game—elk hunting is hard until it's not, and one right setup can change everything.

Presidential power has expanded far beyond what the framers of the Constitution envisioned. From Lincoln and Roosevelt to Nixon and Trump, presidents have pushed the limits of executive authority — often during moments of crisis. Understanding this history is key to understanding what comes next for American democracyIn this episode, host Simone Leeper speaks with American historians Douglas Brinkley and Rick Perlstein, CLC Executive Director Adav Noti and Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC. In conversation, they trace how the presidency has gathered sweeping power over time; what happens when oversight of this executive power breaks down; and what legal, legislative and civic reforms could restore accountability, prevent presidential overreach and safeguard the constitutional separation of powers that defines the United States.Timestamps:(00:05) — Why were federal troops deployed in Los Angeles?(05:11) — Can the president legally invoke emergency powers?(07:31) — How did the Founders limit presidential authority?(09:14) — When did executive orders begin to expand presidential power?(10:25) — How did FDR and later presidents redefine the presidency?(13:04) — What did Nixon's “If the president does it, it's not illegal” comment really mean?(15:22) — What are the origins of the so-called unitary executive theory?(18:21) — How are checks and balances failing?(19:42) — Is America sliding toward authoritarianism?(27:57) — How is Campaign Legal Center fighting unlawful presidential overreach through litigation?(30:00) — Why does birthright citizenship matter for American democracy?(33:13) — What can be done to stop abuses of presidential authority?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Juan Proaño is an entrepreneur, technologist and business leader who is active in civic affairs, social impact, and politics He has served as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) since November 2023. As LULAC's CEO, Juan oversees the day-to-day operations at LULAC; identifies strategic growth areas; and works to amplify the organization's advocacy initiatives and action-oriented programs.Rick Perlstein is an American historian, writer and journalist who has garnered recognition for his chronicles of the post-1960s American conservative movement. He is the author of five bestselling books. Perlstein received the 2001 Los Angeles Times Book Award for History for his first book, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, and appeared on the best books of the year lists of The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. His essays and book reviews have been published in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Nation, The Village Voice and Slate, among others. A contributing editor and board member of In These Times magazine, he lives in Chicago.Douglas Brinkley is the Katherine Tsanoff Brown Chair in Humanities and Professor of History at Rice University, CNN Presidential Historian and a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. He works in many capacities in the world of public history, including on boards, museums, colleges and historical societies. The Chicago Tribune dubbed him “America's New Past Master.” The New York Historical has chosen Brinkley as their official U.S. Presidential Historian. His recent book Cronkite won the Sperber Prize, while The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast received the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. He has received a Grammy Award for Presidential Suite and seven honorary doctorates in American Studies. His two-volume annotated The Nixon Tapes recently won the Arthur S. Link – Warren F. Kuehl Prize. He is a member of the Century Association, Council of Foreign Relations and the James Madison Council of the Library of Congress. He lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife and three children.Adav Noti coordinates all of Campaign Legal Center's operations and programmatic activities, overseeing CLC's efforts to protect elections, advance voter freedom, fix the campaign finance system, ensure fair redistricting and promote government ethics. Adav has conducted dozens of constitutional cases in trial and appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court. He also advises members of Congress and other policymakers on advancing democracy through legislation. Prior to joining CLC, Adav served for more than 10 years in nonpartisan leadership capacities within the Office of General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission, and he served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Adav regularly provides expert analysis for television, radio and print journalism.Links: Voting Is an American Freedom. The President Can't Change That – CLC  What Are Executive Orders and How Do They Work? – CLC  The Significance of Firing Inspectors General: Explained – CLC  CLC's Kedric Payne on Trump's Brazen Removal of Nation's Top Ethics Official – CLC  The Justice Department Is In Danger Of Losing Its Way Under Trump – CLC  It's almost Inauguration Day. Will there be any checks on Trump's power? – Trevor Potter op-d in The Hill Amidst the Noise and Confusion – Trevor Potter's newsletter Understanding Corruption and Conflicts of Interest in Government | Campaign Legal Center – CLC  CLC Sues to Stop Elon Musk and DOGE's Lawless, Unconstitutional Power Grab | Campaign Legal Center – CLC  Trump's Executive Orders 2025 – Federal Register  Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections (Trump's EO on voting) – The White House  Defending the Freedom to Vote from the Trump Administration's Unconstitutional Presidential Overreach (LULAC, et al. v. Executive Office of the President) – CLC  CLC Sues to Block Trump Administration's Illegal Election Overreach – CLC  Victory! Anti-Voter Executive Order Halted in Court – CLC  Understanding the election tech implications in the Trump Administration's executive order – Verified Voting  Independent Agencies Must Remain Independent – CLC  Can President Trump Do That? – CLC  Why Birthright Citizenship Is an Essential Part of Our Democracy – CLC  Authoritarianism, explained – Protect Democracy The Authoritarian Playbook – Protect Democracy U.S. Supreme Court Significantly Limits Restraints on Unconstitutional Presidential Actions – CLC  Reconciliation Bill Passes the Senate Without Two Dangerous Provisions: Campaign Legal Center Reacts – CLC  The “Self-Evident” Case for Opposing Tyranny – Trevor Potter's Newsletter White House Eyes Rarely Used Power to Override Congress on Spending – NY TimesAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Newt talks with Brett Baier, chief political anchor for Fox News Channel, about his new book "To Rescue the American Spirit: Teddy Roosevelt and the Birth of a Superpower." Baier, known for his passion for presidential biographies, discusses the historical significance of Theodore Roosevelt, highlighting his role in expanding America's global influence and his larger-than-life persona. Their conversation touches on Roosevelt's achievements, such as brokering peace in the Russo-Japanese War and his leadership style exemplified by the Rough Riders. Baier draws parallels between Roosevelt and modern figures like Donald Trump, noting their shared charisma and unconventional approaches. The discussion also covers Roosevelt's progressive policies, his impact on American culture, and his adventurous spirit, including his perilous Amazon expedition. Baier's book tour and his approach to balancing his career in news with writing are also discussed.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

FOX News Chief Political Anchor and Executive Editor of Special Report, Bret Baier, shares his new book, To Rescue The American Spirit: Teddy Roosevelt And The Birth Of A Superpower. He explains why he loves writing presidential biographies, drawing the parallels between history and the present day. Bret discusses why President Teddy Roosevelt was a visionary in advocating for America to become a global power. He contrasts President Roosevelt and President Trump, and the two presidents' desire to become peacemakers and problem-solvers for the world. To Rescue The American Spirit: Teddy Roosevelt And The Birth Of A Superpower is available now wherever books are sold.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Author: Brad Meltzer (and Josh Mensch) Book: THE NAZI CONSPIRACY: The Secret Plot to Kill Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill (Young Reader's Edition) Publishing: Scholastic Focus (October 21, 2025) Synopsis (from the Publisher): New York Times bestselling authors Brad Meltzer and Josh Mensch adapt their instant bestseller, The Nazi Conspiracy, for young readers to bring them […] The post BRAD MELTZER – THE NAZI CONSPIRACY: The Secret Plot to Kill Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill (Young Reader's Edition) appeared first on KSCJ 1360.

On this episode of Reaganism, host Roger Zakheim sits down with Tim Bouverie, author of the new book "Allies at War: How the Struggles Between the Allied Powers Shaped the War and the World." Tim and Roger delve into the complexities of alliances during World War II, focusing on the intricate dynamics between the Allied powers. Tim discusses how the collaboration among nations like the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union was crucial in defeating the Axis powers, despite internal rivalries and suspicions. They explore the historical context of these alliances, the strategic decisions made, and the lessons learned, emphasizing the importance of unity in facing global threats. They conclude their conversation with a contemporary appraisal of Roosevelt and Churchill, rejecting far-right reinterpretations of World War II and Roosevelt and Churchill's legacies.

On Friday's Daily Puck Drop, Jason “Puck” Puckett and the Go-2-Guy Jim Moore start off the show in a somewhat depressed mood because our Mariners have forgotten how to play baseball! Puck and Jim welcome Ryan Divish of the Seattle Times for a special “Inside Pitch” edition following the Mariners game four nightmare and a preview of game five. As Divish is in the car and making his way to the park and they discuss Dan Wilson's decision to pull Luis Castillo, potential lineup changes, Randy-Land and what's expected from Bryce Miller and Bryan Woo today. Puck then heads to football and starts off with “Friday Night Lights” with Todd Milles from VarsityWaNews.comto get everyone caught up on the biggest games in the state of Washington.  Todd also has news on the Roosevelt football program and a baffling decision by the WIAA.   Then it's time for “The Last Word” with Bob Condotta of the Seattle Times, as he previews the Seahawks upcoming game against Houston.  Bob and Puck also discuss Riq Woolen trade rumors heating up and will the Seahawks be involved in other big names on the market?  Also, can the Seahawks offense sustain their imbalance and lack of running game?Puck wraps up the show with “Hey, What the Puck!?”   Series is down to three. The Mariners have proved countless times that when their backs are against the wall they respond. (1:00) Puck and Jim (16:50) “Inside Pitch” Ryan Divish (46:40) Todd Milles, Varsitywanews.com (1:00:39) Bob Condotta, Seattle Times (1:17:22) “Hey, What the Puck!?”  

It's 1903. This day, Teddy Roosevelt is visiting Ellis Island amid a fierce conversation about American immigration policy.Jody, Niki, and Kellie are joined by Andrew Porwancher of Arizona State to discuss how Roosevelt's views on immigration were always shifting, from a humanitarian instinct to electoral concerns to scientific ideas about racial superiority. They also discuss the blunt language used around race and immigration at the time, including Roosevelt's fears that the "right" kind of immigrants were commiting "race suicide."Andrew's new book is "American Macabee: Theodore Roosevelt and The Jews." It's available now!Sign up for our America250 Watch newsletter, where you'll also get links and lots more historical tidbits.https://thisdaypod.substack.com/Find out more about the show at thisdaypod.comThis Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

George Selgin has spent over four decades thinking about money, banking, and economic history, and Tyler has known him for nearly all of it. Selgin's new book False Dawn: The New Deal and the Promise of Recovery, 1933–1947 examines what the New Deal actually accomplished—and failed to accomplish—in confronting the Great Depression.  Tyler and George discuss the surprising lack of fiscal and monetary stimulus in the New Deal, whether revaluing gold was really the best path to economic reflation, how much Glass-Steagall and other individual parts of the New Deal mattered, Keynes' "very sound" advice to Roosevelt, why Hayek's analysis fell short, whether America would've done better with a more concentrated banking sector, how well the quantity theory of money holds up, his vision for a "night watchman" Fed, how many countries should dollarize, whether stablecoins should be allowed to pay interest, his stake in a fractional-reserve Andalusian donkey ownership scheme, why his Spanish vocabulary is particularly strong on plumbing, his ambivalence about the eurozone, what really got America out of the Great Depression, and more. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video on the new dedicated Conversations with Tyler channel. Recorded September 26th, 2025. Other ways to connect Follow us on X and Instagram Follow Tyler on X Follow George on X Sign up for our newsletter Join our Discord Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here. Photo Credit: Richie Downs

‘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

Shifting the pass-the-parcel of news and removing the wrapping when the music stops. Which this week happens here … … will rock bands get offered the Saudi money? … “there could be no British nightclubs in 2030” … Diane Keaton and why all men were besotted … the day Led Zeppelin played an Aqua Theatre for an audience swimming and in boats … “the optimum number of band members is either three or loads” … did Easy Rider invent the music video? … Trainspotting, Reservoir Dogs, Midnight Cowboy, Almost Famous – soundtrack moments that made their movies … 12 million more UK tickets were sold than in 2019 yet 150 small venues closed in two years: “scale is now part of the appeal” … the genius of John Sebastian … the end of MTV UK and how video changed the landscape … “Here's to you Mrs Roosevelt”: how Simon & Garfunkel got into the Graduate … can anyone fathom Ghost Town Blues by Prefab Sprout? Plus Tim Hardin, Harry Nilsson and birthday guest Matthew Elliott on why three is the magic number.Help us to keep The Longest Conversation In Rock going: https://www.patreon.com/wordinyourear Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Shifting the pass-the-parcel of news and removing the wrapping when the music stops. Which this week happens here … … will rock bands get offered the Saudi money? … “there could be no British nightclubs in 2030” … Diane Keaton and why all men were besotted … the day Led Zeppelin played an Aqua Theatre for an audience swimming and in boats … “the optimum number of band members is either three or loads” … did Easy Rider invent the music video? … Trainspotting, Reservoir Dogs, Midnight Cowboy, Almost Famous – soundtrack moments that made their movies … 12 million more UK tickets were sold than in 2019 yet 150 small venues closed in two years: “scale is now part of the appeal” … the genius of John Sebastian … the end of MTV UK and how video changed the landscape … “Here's to you Mrs Roosevelt”: how Simon & Garfunkel got into the Graduate … can anyone fathom Ghost Town Blues by Prefab Sprout? Plus Tim Hardin, Harry Nilsson and birthday guest Matthew Elliott on why three is the magic number.Help us to keep The Longest Conversation In Rock going: https://www.patreon.com/wordinyourear Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

‘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

Diving into the history of Morgan Stanley's first bond deal, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains the value of high-quality corporate bonds.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at the first bond that Morgan Stanley helped issue 90 years ago and what it might tell us about market uncertainty. It's Thursday, October 9th at 4pm in London. In times of uncertainty, it's common to turn to history. And this we think also applies to financial markets. The Great Depression began roughly 95 years ago. Of its many causes, one was that the same banks that were shepherding customer deposits were also involved in much riskier and more volatile financial market activity. And so, when the stock market crashed, falling over 40 percent in 1929, and ultimately 86 percent from a peak to a trough in 1932, unsuspecting depositors often found their banks overwhelmed by this market maelstrom. The Roosevelt administration took office in March of 1933 and set about trying to pick up the pieces. Many core aspects that we associate with modern financial life from FDIC insurance to social security to the somewhat unique American 30-year mortgage rose directly out of policies from this administration and the financial ashes of this period. There was also quite understandably, a desire to make banking safer. And so the Glass Steagall Act mandated that banks had a choice. They could either do the traditional deposit taking and lending, or they could be active in financial market trading and underwriting. In response to these new separations, Morgan Stanley was founded 90 years ago in 1935 to do the latter. It was a very uncertain time. The U.S. economy was starting to recover under President Roosevelt's New Deal policies, but unemployment was still over 17 percent. Europe's economy was struggling, and the start of the Second World War would be only four years away. The S&P Composite Equity Index, which currently sits at a level of around 6,700, was at 12. It was into this world that Morgan Stanley brought its first bond deal, a 30-year corporate bond for a AA rated U.S. utility. And so, listeners, what do you think that that sort of bond yielded all those years ago? Luckily for us, the good people at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis digitized a vast array of old financial newspapers. And so, we can see what the original bond yielded in the announcement. The first bond, Morgan Stanley helped issue with a 30-year maturity and a AA rating had a yield of just 3.55 percent. That was just 70 basis points over what a comparable U.S. treasury bond offered at the time. Anniversaries are nice to celebrate, but we think this example has some lessons for the modern day. Above anything, it's a clear data point that even in very uncertain economic times, high quality corporate bonds can trade at very low spreads – much lower than one might intuitively expect. Indeed, the extra spread over government bonds that investors required for a 30-year AA rated utility bond 90 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the Great Depression is almost exactly the same as today. It's one more reason why we think we have to be quite judicious about turning too negative on corporate credit too early, even if the headline spreads look low. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Historian David Beito discusses his new book “FDR: A New Political Life” and exposes how FDR's New Deal laid the foundations for America's surveillance state, media censorship, and executive dictatorship. From telegram spying and gold confiscation to secret war plans and Supreme Court power grabs, this interview reveals how Roosevelt redefined tyranny in democratic disguise—and how today's leaders are repeating his playbook. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Historian David Beito discusses his new book “FDR: A New Political Life” and exposes how FDR's New Deal laid the foundations for America's surveillance state, media censorship, and executive dictatorship. From telegram spying and gold confiscation to secret war plans and Supreme Court power grabs, this interview reveals how Roosevelt redefined tyranny in democratic disguise—and how today's leaders are repeating his playbook. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

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. 

Have you ever dreamed of hunting a huge Red Stag in New Zealand? So have we... so we got a couple of experts on the phone and unpacked just how to get it done, along with chasing big fallow deer, himalayan tahr, chamois, and even Roosevelt elk on the tip of the South Island. This was one of the coolest and most informative episodes we've done in a long time. ENJOY!    FRIENDS, PLEASE SUPPORT THE PODCAST!  Join the Backcountry Hunting Podcast tribe and get access to all our bonus material on www.patreon.com/backcountry   Check out our new "recommended outfitters" hunt booking agency! We're super excited about this venture that allows us to share our favorite destinations around the world with our loyal listeners. We'll also be doing hosted hunts each year, which will be available first to our loyal listeners on Patreon.  We have a new advertising partner! Check out Swift Bullets, known and trusted as the best of the best by most African Dangerous Game specialists.  It's Porter's Firearms' 30-year anniversary this month! They're offering some incredible deals specifically to podcast listeners. Call Shane Porter at 870-701-0504 for details.    VISIT ALL OUR SPONSORS HERE:  www.timneytriggers.com www.browning.com www.leupold.com www.siembidacustomknives.com www.onxmaps.com www.silencercentral.com https://www.portersfirearms.com/ https://javelinbipod.com www.swiftbullets.com

PREVIEW::  This source details President Franklin D. Roosevelt's covert strategy to maneuver the United States into supporting Great Britain despite strong domestic anti-war resistance, and the ideological clash this caused with Charles Lindbergh. America First: Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh in the Shadow of War Hardcover – September 24, 2024 by  H. W. Brands  (Author)  1941 Roosevelt's Covert Strategy: Roosevelt was highly committed to Churchill and intended to bring the U.S. in on the British side. Since he could not openly support intervention due to resistance from Lindbergh, Congress, and the anti-war movement, Roosevelt utilized a highly confidential strategy. He managed an influence-peddling operation designed to prepare the American people for war against the "Hitlerites in Europe" and the "Imperial Japanese Navy and Army in the Pacific." Roosevelt maintained secret correspondence with Churchill; the American public was unaware that Rooseveltwas planning with Churchill on how they would fight together should war occur. Roosevelt had morally sided with the British but told Churchill it would take time to bring the American people around politically. He brought in covert operators from Great Britain. The administration gave its covert blessing to a large-scale British propaganda effort directed by William Stephenson in America. Stephenson's goal was explicitly to move American public opinion to the side of Britain. Stephenson's crew, channeled to Roosevelt via William Donovan, employed standard propaganda techniques, such as planting unacknowledged stories and arranging for rumors to appear and be confirmed by other rumors. The source highlights the hypocrisy of the administration engaging in this manipulation while simultaneously "complaining bitterly against the Germans for attempting to do the very same thing." Ideological Conflict: Imperialism vs. Democracy: Roosevelt recognized that the interests of Britain were "not identical to the interests of the United States." Roosevelt's public rationale for aiding Britain was that the U.S. would be "aiding democracy." Lindbergh "calls him out on this," arguing that aiding Britain meant "aiding imperialism." Lindbergh questioned whether Americans should fight to defend the British Empire, asking if American soldiers would go to "defend British rule in India." Churchill is characterized as the "most unreconstructed of British imperialists" who was determined to defend the British Empire, a goal Roosevelt had no desire to pursue.