Podcasts about Russian Empire

Send us a textDuring Ivan III's reign, the Principality of Muscovy grew to become what we now know as the Russian Empire.Support the show

Rarely is one of our shows as intricately fascinating and self-disclosing to our guest and ourselves that we cannot adequately describe all that we covered, all that we learned, and all that we began integrating anew into our knowledge as the interview evolved.   Our guest, physician Juliette Engel, was a captive, slave, and experimental subject controlled by the CIA from early childhood until age sixteen. Acting on her own, she then escaped the CIA/MKUltra house of devil worship — a subject we will let her tell you about in the interview. She began her new life as a college student, and to manage her severe post-traumatic stress, she developed amnesia for her horrendous past. As a therapist and researcher, I know this happens, but it requires a powerful mind like Dr. Engel to accomplish it and ultimately to flourish.   Dr. Engel is part of a growing number of people coming forth about their experiences as victims of CIA experiments, which in part were training her to become a part of what I have decided to call, “the global community of abusers without conscience,” a powerful aspect of the global predators and their unholy empires.   Adding incredible background to her personal testimony, she sent us in advance a document released from the National Security Archive on December 23, 2024. The ominous title is “CIA Behavioral Control Experiments Focus of New Scholarly Collection.”   The CIA documents confirm many of Dr. Engel's memories, which only began to unfold much later, after a life of medical reform work in Russia.   Confirming Our Own Experiences with the Deep State and CIA   One huge confirmation for me and Ginger is how much the CIA was indeed focused on defending and supporting the very kind or torturous and inhuman psychiatric treatments that I began openly opposing in the early 1970s, including lobotomy and other forms of psychosurgery and electroshock (ECT) which I have described as an electrical closed-head lobotomy.   Another insight for me was the similarity between the CIA agents and collaborators, as described in the CIA documents, and the global predators we have described in our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey. This is the same profile we continue to explore in our recent columns about America's four current empires: the Western Global Empire, the Eastern Global Chinese Communist Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Caliphate Muslim Empire.   These predators, across a broad spectrum of activities, are primarily motivated by a lust for power over other human beings. They also desire wealth, but mostly as a tool for gaining power. What drives them is the desire to exert power over as many people as possible within their sphere, whether it is a political party, a criminal cabal or conspiracy, a government agency, a nation, an empire, or a global governance.   If they did not lust for power, they would not succeed in their goal of dominating, controlling, exploiting, enslaving, or killing as many people as possible. They must also possess extreme cunning and shrewdness to be able to manipulate and exploit so many people and to compete for power among so many other violent, cunning people. Probably above all else, they must be masters of conspiracy, able to seduce or intimidate others into helping them pursue their evil aims.   These predators must lack identification with the people within their own family,  group, nation, or empire, because seizing and growing enormous power usually requires, as history demonstrates, killing competitors in their own families and their own inner circles of co-conspirators, as well as millions of their own people, as demonstrated by apex global predators from Alexander “the Great” to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the current leaders of Communist China.   These predators must not allow themselves to genuinely love anyone, because such entanglements and feelings would check or inhibit the kind of evil conduct required for fulfilling their primary lust for power. Ultimately, they must not identify with anyone but themselves.   The following excerpts are taken from the vastly important document that our guest, Juliette Engel, MD, first drew to our attention, “CIA Behavior Control Experiments Focus of New Scholarly Collection.”  [The document lacks page numbers, but the excerpts can be located by means of searching the document:]   Excerpt 1 from the CIA Documents   Asked whether the CIA had tried to identify “techniques of producing retrograde amnesia,” Gottlieb said it was something that they “talked about,” but that he could not “remember any specific projects or specific research mounted in response to that question.” Asked if the CIA ever used “psychosurgery research projects,” Gottlieb said his “remembrance is that they did.”   Excerpt 2   The elevation of Allen Dulles to deputy director of central intelligence in 1951 led to an expansion of BLUEBIRD programs under a new name, ARTICHOKE, and under the direction of Gottlieb at TSS. The new program was to include, among other projects, the development of “gas guns” and “poisons,” and experiments to test whether “monotonous sounds,” “concussion,” “electroshock,” and “induced sleep” could be used as a means to gain “hypnotic control of an individual.”[5]   Excerpt 3   Another prominent MKULTRA “cutout” foundation, the Human Ecology Society, was run by Cornell Medical Center neurologist Dr. Harold Wolff, who wrote an early study of communist brainwashing techniques for Allen Dulles and later partnered with the CIA to develop a combination of drugs and sensory deprivation that could be used to erase the human mind. Among the most extreme MKULTRA projects funded through Wolff's group were the infamous “depatterning” experiments conducted by Dr. D. Ewen Cameron at the Allan Memorial Institute, a psychiatric hospital at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Cameron's methods combined induced sleep, electroshocks, and “psychic driving,” under which drugged subjects were psychologically tortured for weeks or months in an effort to reprogram their minds.   Except 4   While no new techniques had been discovered, presently known mind control techniques described in the attachment include the use of LSD and other drugs, hypnosis, the use of the polygraph, neurosurgery, and electric shock treatments. However, field testing of these techniques has been handicapped by the “inability to provide the medical competence for a final evaluation and for such field testing as the evaluation indicates. Repeated efforts to recruit medical personnel have failed and until recently the CIA Medical Staff has not been in a position to assist.”   Excerpt 5   The response from TSS lists 17 “materials and methods” that the Chemical Division was working to develop, including:   *substances that “promote illogical thinking,” materials that would “render the induction of hypnosis easier” or “enhance its usefulness,” substances that would help individuals to endure “privation, torture and coercion during interrogation” and attempts at ‘brainwashing,'” *“materials and physical methods” to “produce amnesia” and “shock and confusion over extended periods of time,” substances that would “produce physical disablement, including paralysis, *substances that “alter personality structure” or that “produce ‘pure' euphoria with no subsequent let-down,” and a “knockout pill” for use in surreptitious druggings and to produce amnesia, among other things. [Asterisks and bold added]   Excerpt 6   Gibbons was not fully clear on how the CIA obtained LSD, but most of it came from the Eli Lilly & Company, according to this memo, which “apparently makes a gift of it to CIA.”  [bold added. There are many mentions in the report citing Eli Lilly as the source of massive of amounts of LSD which the CIA then inflicted upon Americans, sometimes as experiments and sometimes for financial gain.]   End of Excerpts   In the current release of CIA documents, many well-known government officials and universities are named as supporting and collaborating with MKUltra and other ghastly CIA experiments. Particularly stunning to me, the CIA bought a new wing for the Georgetown University Hospital, in return for which the CIA was given a special “safe house” inside the medical wing where they were free to inflict their wanton will on involuntary experimental subjects with supportive help from the hospital.   One More Step in Facing the Evil Within   These quotes confirm what I had long suspected and had only limited data to confirm — that the CIA and other government agencies are very protective and supportive of psychosurgery (lobotomy) and electroshock treatment (ECT). They want to research and apply these gross methods of damaging the human brain and mind to facilitate interrogation, to erase memories, to change personalities, and to make people more obedient and robotic. They also want them widely used in society to dumb down and render passive as many people as possible on the way to building the global slave state.   During this interview, we began to more deeply appreciate the involvement of the Deep State in psychiatry and psychology and the strength of their opposition to my reform work going back to the early 1970s. My earliest reform efforts focused on these two treatments, psychosurgery and then electroshock, and finally matured into seeing all psychiatric treatment as an assault on the brain and mind.   In various books and scientific articles, Ginger and I have been pointing to federal agencies pushing lobotomy (DOJ, NIMH), pushing electroshock (CIA, FDA), and pushing psychoactive drugs (FDA, CIA, NIMH, NIH, Department of Education, and others.   Our greatest confrontation with federal agencies came during an intense few years when we educated and organized people to shut down a massive U.S. interagency eugenical program to go into the inner cities to identify supposed biological and genetic causes of violence in black children and youth. The goal was ultimately to justify the widespread diagnosing and drugging of these children, including highly remunerative drugs like antidepressants and stimulants. I had already encountered outright racism, with neurosurgeons and psychiatrists advocating in print for the use of psychosurgery to control the leaders of black uprisings in the 1960s and early 1970s.   We completely defeated the massive eugenics project, causing the cancellation of a major conference and many research projects. We authored a book about it, The War Against Children of Color (1994), which addresses numerous Deep State actors such as the CDC, Department of Justice, FBI, NIMH, NIH, DHHS, and PHS, and names many perpetrators. But we had not yet seen the globalist scope of these activities. Here are links to a few articles about our successful efforts to stop the federal eugenics program.   The Role of Psychiatry in Nazi Germany and the U.S. Violence Initiative. This link contains the written introduction and historical video of Dr. Peter Breggin's presentation to Black leaders and community members in Harlem in the early 1990s about the federal government's plans to biologically “prevent violence” by identifying and drugging Black toddlers and children—a plan ultimately stopped due to the Breggins' exposure of the eugenics program. A biomedical programme for urban violence control in the US: the dangers of psychiatric social control; by Peter R Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin Letter to the Editor, The New York Times by Peter R. Breggin, M.D.: U.S. Hasn't Given Up Linking Genes to Crime.  Excerpt: “Dr. Goodwin estimates that 100,000 children, as young as 5, will be identified for psychiatric interventions. He called the violence initiative the No. 1 funding priority for the Federal mental health establishment in 1994. My organization has since obtained documentation that millions of dollars of Federal funds are being spent on violence initiative research and planning, including studies of both rhesus monkeys and inner-city children. Newly developed psychiatric drugs are being tested for violence prevention in monkey studies, and some psychiatrists are claiming they can be used in humans for the same purpose. It seems inevitable that the violence initiative will involve administering the same drugs to inner-city children. The widespread use of Ritalin to control aggressive children, frequently supported or initiated by public schools, has set a precedent for pharmacological intervention.” Disposable Children in Black Faces: The Violence Initiative as Inner-City Containment Policy; Alfreda A. Sellers-Diamond, UMKC Law Review, 1994. Campaigns Against Racist Federal Programs by the Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; Peter R. Breggin, Journal of African American Men, 1995. NIH, under fire, freezes grant for conference on genetics and crime; Nature, Vol. 358, 30 July 1992, p357.   It was further hammered home to me in the interview with Dr. Engel that the kinds of individuals who are cunning enough and violent enough to run totalitarian nations and empires have their counterparts running amok within many federal agencies and many other American institutions. And that is the force from within that we are fighting today as we stand up for freedom in America. We must face a former national leadership, and a current Deep State and other institutions riddled with the worst human beings we can imagine and understand — or we will remain vastly hampered in fighting them.     ______   Learn more about Dr. Peter Breggin's work: https://breggin.com/   See more from Dr. Breggin's long history of being a reformer in psychiatry: https://breggin.com/Psychiatry-as-an-Instrument-of-Social-and-Political-Control   Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, the how-to manual @ https://breggin.com/a-guide-for-prescribers-therapists-patients-and-their-families/   Get a copy of Dr. Breggin's latest book: WHO ARE THE “THEY” - THESE GLOBAL PREDATORS? WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVES AND THEIR PLANS FOR US? HOW CAN WE DEFEND AGAINST THEM? Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey Get a copy: https://www.wearetheprey.com/   “No other book so comprehensively covers the details of COVID-19 criminal conduct as well as its origins in a network of global predators seeking wealth and power at the expense of human freedom and prosperity, under cover of false public health policies.”   ~ Robert F Kennedy, Jr Author of #1 bestseller The Real Anthony Fauci and Founder, Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel for Children's Health Defense.  

A violent childhood in Georgia, then part of the vast Russian Empire, sets young Joseph dreaming of a different world. He becomes a Bolshevik and, hardened further by a sudden tragedy, is ready to seize his chance when the revolution finally comes.Listen to Legacy on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. You can binge episodes early and ad-free on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial by visiting wondery.com/links/legacy now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ukrainians have resisted Russia's aggression for years. Since the full-scale invasion of their country in 2022, Ukrainian women in particular have taken on important roles on the frontlines, in civil society, and at home. Gražina Bielousova's research examines how Ukrainian leftist feminists advocate for their causes at home and abroad, facing distinct challenges as they attempt to defend their country. The Ukrainian case is also distinct from Latvia and Lithuania, whose organizing takes on different shapes for the same cause. Bielousova joins Ben Gardner-Gill to explain these interactions and discuss the ongoing process of decolonization in Baltic Studies.Transcript Ben Gardner-Gill: Hello, and welcome to Baltic Ways. I'm your co-host, Ben Gardner-Gill. Today we're talking with Gražina Belousova. Gražina is a feminist scholar of race, religion, and gender in post-Soviet Europe. She earned her PhD from Duke University in 2022. Currently, she is a postdoctoral scholar at Vilnius University's Institute of International Relations and Political Science and a researcher at Vytautas Magnus University.Her current research project focuses on leftist feminisms in East Europe in light of Russia's war against Ukraine, which will culminate in her first book, What's Left of Feminism in East Europe.Gražina, welcome to Baltic Ways.Gražina Belousova: Thank you so much for having me, Ben.BGG: So let's kick off by just hearing a little bit more about your background. I know you finished your PhD pretty recently. Could you tell us a little bit more about how you got into academia, sort of your research interests, and what you're working on at the moment?GB: Right. Yes, I just defended my PhD in 2022. It's hard to believe that it's been nearly three years now. In my PhD, I focused on historical matters. My PhD was in religion and cultural anthropology. And one of the things that I found missing when I was trying to theorize the part of the world that I call home and that most of the world calls Eastern Europe—I realized that I was lacking a solid theory that would bridge economics, anthropology, and religious studies.I wanted to understand how religious difference, especially perceived religious difference, played a role in creating the space that we call Eastern Europe today. And that took me to 18th and 19th century travel writings by Western travelers, oftentimes who were on an official mission, to the edges or to the depths of the Russian Empire.So I've read a lot of ambassadors' letters. I've read a lot of dispatches from St. Petersburg and Moscow, trying to understand how Westerners thought about that religious difference and how that thinking structured their understanding of what this place was and why it was different. What I tried to argue is actually that perceived religious difference was at the root of thinking of Eastern Europe as something different.Now, when I chose to embark on that topic, I had to put another topic aside, which was the question of very contemporary matters, the question of leftist political thought and feminism. At that point, it felt to me more pertinent to write the kind of theory that I felt was missing. When I was given the opportunity to pursue a postdoctoral position at Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science, I pitched this idea to them.And we very quickly pulled together the application. And the next thing I knew, I was embarking on a project on leftist feminisms in Eastern Europe in light of the war in Ukraine. So, the path was windy, but here I am today, knees and elbows deep, in the project on leftist feminism.BGG: Wonderful. I mean, a windy path is going to be familiar to so many people listening.So, no surprise and no surprise as well that the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has really impacted your work and your life as it has for many of us. So tell us a little bit more about that.Over the last three years, we've been watching and seeing the horrors in Ukraine. From your perspective, from your academic work, what are some of the main things that you're looking at?GB: One of the things that I'm particularly interested in is the way that groups that are on the edges of society, on the margins of society, such as leftists, such as feminists, and especially leftist feminists—when the two come together and try to articulate their social and political vision and explain to themselves and to their fellow compatriots and oftentimes foreign donors, in my case, also Western leftist feminists, their relevance, how they're trying to articulate their position.War has a penchant for heightening nationalist tendencies. And this is not some kind of particular Eastern European pathology. War anywhere is going to produce these results. That is normal. People defend themselves and articulate themselves on the basis on which they're being attacked, on the basis on which they're being bombed.So this is what we are seeing in Ukraine. Leftism in Eastern Europe, because of the Soviet past, is often associated with Soviet nostalgia. Feminism, on the other hand, is oftentimes seen as something antithetical to national identity, something that is imported from the West, and something that either has no relevance or can be dangerous, especially when questions of national unity, questions of national defense come about.That is one of the reasons why I embarked on this journey, and this is one of the reasons why Ukraine had to be part of this picture. Because while the other countries that I'm looking at—Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Moldova—experience the threat of invasion, Ukraine is under attack.And one of the things that I'm finding is that Ukrainian leftist feminists are incredibly resourceful and incredibly gifted at articulating their relevance.One of the things that I'm going to say that stems from that understanding of leftist feminism that's erroneous, but that's pervasive, is that Ukrainian leftist feminists do not debate the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state. What is in question is the way things are happening under the conditions of war.The questions of most vulnerable people—so questions of what happens with people with disabilities, questions of what happens to single mothers, questions of what happens to the elderly people who are maybe unable to evacuate, questions of what happens to the working class people—all of these things are at the forefront of their minds. They're trying to be the advocates of their pleas to the larger society, while at the same time trying to articulate Ukraine's right to self-defense to Western leftist feminists.BGG: So they have both this tension, maybe tension is the wrong word, tell me if it isn't, but they have this tension internally where they're trying to advocate for what they see as justice or what is right with a domestic audience who, understandably, may be more frequently focused on what's happening at the front lines.And then there's also this international question, the foreign audience for these Ukrainian leftist feminists, who have a very different perspective on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And I specifically use that verbiage instead of Russia's invasion of Ukraine because they're going to think about it very differently.So let's split those out a little bit, and I want to start with the domestic. You talked about the advocacy of these leftist feminists for the most marginalized groups in society, for those who are most vulnerable.In your view, where have they been most successful, perhaps? Where have they seen actual progress happen from their advocacy?GB: One of the things that immediately comes to mind, and many of my interlocutors were directly involved with, is the nurses' movement–the unionization and self-organization of the nurses.There is a movement called Be Like Nina, referring to one of the nurses seen as a pioneer of resisting exploitation. And, of course, under the conditions of war, the labor of nurses is incredibly valuable and needed, but not always appropriately compensated. This is what we can call essential labor, especially when we talk about the front lines, where people are wounded.Many of them are wounded very badly on a daily basis. However, there are other things that are happening in the background as well. While a lot of the resources are pulled to the front, there are people who are experiencing regular daily struggles with their health. And the nurses are being stretched very thin.And this was something that was really amazing to me. This was really one of the very few instances where I saw academics who are leftist feminists actually touching the ground with their ideas: where they got involved with helping the nurses organize, but not taking the center stage, where they acted as support, as a resource, but not overtaking the movement, rather creating the conditions under which nurses themselves could articulate what it was that they needed, what their goals were.And that was incredibly impressive to me because healthcare is severely underfunded across the whole region, and to achieve such tangible goals as wage increases and regulations that empower nurses to do their job was truly impressive. With every conversation with a woman—because I specifically talk only to women—I just felt sheer amazement, because this is so contrary to so many imaginations of what civil society, self-organization, or networks are like in Eastern Europe.This is so contrary to what some have called ‘uncivil' society. What is happening is really self-organization and civil society at its best, organized by women who are oftentimes stretched very thin, not just at work, but also at home, women whose husbands are potentially on the front lines.So to me, I really cannot think of anything else that, in terms of real life impact and in terms of transforming people's lives, has been grander (I'm going to go for that word) than this.BGG: That's remarkable, and thank you for bringing that. I had very little idea of this progress and this happening.So you use the term civil society, which I think is quite apt, and Western conceptions of civil society in the region that we call Eastern Europe can be highly misguided. Let's just put it like that. I think back to a webinar that the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies (AABS) hosted on Ukrainian civil society, democratization, responses to the war, and we have this comparative Ukrainian and Baltic perspective, where we looked at how Ukrainian civil society was responding.We looked at how Baltic civil society was responding, and you're doing something similar in your research here. You're looking at Latvia and Lithuania as two of the other case studies, in addition to Poland, Moldova, and, of course, Ukraine. One thing that I think we can all observe just from watching the news, let alone being in the countries as well, is that civil society across the region has had this really robust response in the last few years.So could you speak a little bit more to that in the comparative cases outside of Ukraine that you're looking at in your research, especially Latvia and Lithuania?GB: For sure. I think that in order to theorize civil society and the region in general, we need better theory than has been used often to talk about civil society at large.Here, for example, I'm thinking about Emily Channel Justice and her work and the way that she articulates the notion of self-organization. The way that she thinks about Ukraine, especially in the context of Maidan. The way that it left a self-organization, but that can be applied also to any form of civil society, regardless of ideology, is really a network of decentralized, self-organized people's groups.If you were to look for some kind of central organizing pattern, or some kind of centralized way of doing things, most likely you're not going to find it because it's based on personal network, connections, and localized issues. And I think that's definitely something that I'm seeing in Ukraine.One of the things that I'm seeing in Lithuania and Latvia is that it's going to differ slightly because there are going to be more central organizing figures. If we talk about organizing support for Ukraine, one of the things that we're going to see is that people are going to point to nationwide initiatives.Right now in Lithuania, there is an initiative called Radarum, which is a play on words, on radar and on darom, which is a Lithuanian word for let's do it. And it's a nationwide initiative to collect funds to purchase drones and anti-drone equipment for Ukraine. And there are particular faces that we associate with this initiative.National television is running ads for it. So there's a little bit more of a centralized sense to it. But once again, I would say that this is the mainstream way of organizing civil society, which, of course, with Westernization, has taken on some of the patterns that are similar to the West.If we look towards the left, we're going to see very much that it is self-organized, small groups of people who take different initiatives, such as raising funds for medical care, such as raising funds for queer people in Ukraine. So the more mainstream we go, the more patterns that are akin to those that we see in the West we're going to see.That is also going to be true in Latvia. The further left we go, the more organic, grassroots, self-organized cells of people we're going to find who participate in smaller, less visible initiatives. So that's probably the best way that I can explain the difference.BGG: Got it. We see this distinction of centralization and decentralization.One could consider these different types of movements organic in their own ways, but different in different ways. When one thinks of leftist organizing, which has a long and rich history, organic is sort of one of the key words.It's perpetual, and these society-wide initiatives, like what's currently going on in Lithuania, that we've seen across other countries over the last few years, are maybe a little bit less frequent and less common. So there's an important distinction there.So I want to pivot to the international dimension of how the Ukrainian leftist feminists are talking, especially with Western counterparts. And by Western, we mean Western Europe. We mean American and Canadian. We mean Western, as in not Eastern Europe. So could you talk a little bit about the challenges they're facing there?I think I alluded to it earlier. You alluded to it earlier, but could you dive a little bit more into that discourse, that dialogue between the Ukrainians and their counterparts?GB: This is the main point of contention. What does it mean to be leftist? How much does local experience shape being leftist?What is the relationship of the left to the national question? And I think this is where we are seeing the real tension. Underlying this tension, of course, is the question of Russia. Let me try to unpack this. And I'm going to start from the other end than I listed, which is with the question of Russia.Eastern European in general, and Ukrainian in particular, leftist feminists have a very different understanding as to what Russia is in terms of geopolitics than the Western counterparts are going to have. This stems from very different histories. Western leftism—especially the new wave of leftism that arose in the sixties and the seventies—in many ways has redefined itself not just through the questions of class, which I would argue were lost to some extent. They lost their centrality.And they redefined themselves through the anti-colonial, anti-racist struggle. And that struggle was particularly important because after the fall of the formal colonial system, the colonial patterns of economic exploitation, of social exploitation, of brain drain still very much persisted. And naming that and defining themselves against Western neoimperialism or neocolonialism in the Global South was one of the most defining features of the Left, both in the Global South and in the West. Now, Russia at that time had positioned itself as the ally of the colonized countries. And some of it was pure show, and some of it was actual money, resources, and help that were sent, for example, to Angola. And that made a real difference. Whether that was genuine concern for the colonized people or whether that was an ideological tool is a matter of debate.Whatever it was, it had a profound impact on the way that Western leftists relate to Russia. They continue to see Russia out of that tradition, in many ways, as an ally against Western capitalism and imperialism. Their empire, against which they define themselves, continues to be in the West, and oftentimes is seen as centered on the United States.The empire against which we define ourselves in Eastern Europe is Russia, because Russia was the colonizing power in a very real sense in the region. It was our empire that subjugated us. It was the colonial power that engaged in just about every single practice in which any colonial power engages in the region.For us, if we think outside of ourselves, Russia continues to be the colonial power in the way that it relates to Central Asia, in the way that it relates to the indigenous people of Siberia, in the way that it continues to conduct business. So both the left in the West and the left in the East continue to define themselves against the empire, but disagree on who the empire is.The fundamental difference is the question of Russia. Because of the way that Western leftists, and particularly Western leftist feminists, have been taught to see the world, the way that they have been habituated to see the world, they're unable to see Russia as an aggressor. They're unable to change their narrative about how NATO might act.And of course, the criticisms of continued Western abuses of power, especially when they center on the United States—such as Afghanistan or such as Iraq, but also here in the European context, intra-European context, Serbia is another context in which that comes up—are highly debatable questions, but they're seen a certain way. They're understood in a certain way by Western leftists. And because of Russia's criticism of the West, Western leftists see it as a natural ally, or at least as an equally guilty party.BGG: That's a really great explanation. I think the way that you've laid that out makes a lot of sense.It also harkens back to where I want to bring this, which is the debate that has been going on in Baltic studies and other academic fields, especially those focusing on the region, about thinking about Baltic history in particular as a colonial history and thinking about what it means to decolonize Baltic studies as a field, to decolonize our academic thinking. There have been a lot of discussions.I know that we were in the same room at the AABS panel at Yale last year on that fantastic panel about decolonization. Where do you think this leads with regard to your research specifically? There's already this trend in this field. I get the sense that you are an advocate and moving forward in land seeking for the field as a whole to move in that direction.What do you think the next steps are? What paths do you think could be taken? What do people need to be thinking about that they may not already be thinking about?GB: Well, I think for me, the key question when we are talking about Baltic studies and decolonization is what is it that we talk about when we talk about decolonizing Baltic studies or Baltic countries?Because I think sometimes we're talking about four different things. We are talking about the question of colonialism and coloniality. That's one. We are talking about imperialism, Russian imperialism, and Russian imperiality. We are talking about Russification and what it means to de-Russify. And we are also talking about Sovietization and what it means to de-Sovietize.And I would argue that while these four concepts are very much interrelated, they have very different agendas. So, I think it's a question of definitions. How do we define what our agenda is? Which of the four do we have in mind when we talk about decolonizing Baltic countries, Baltic studies, or anything else?And I would say that each of the four has its place and is significant. But the flip side of that, especially if we stay with the question of decolonization, is the question of Western theory, practice, and scholarship as it relates to Baltic studies. Because if we go back to the early questions in the conversation of what is civil society and whether there is a civil society, Baltic countries and the region as a whole are pathologized.Because the concept of what civil society is, or is not, was based on Western understandings and Western practices. And it rendered civil society in the region invisible. In what ways does the production of scholarship and knowledge about the region continue to be based in very unequal power relationships, in such a way that it continues to pathologize the region?And these are very uncomfortable questions, because much like, you know, in the late eighteenth century when the Lithuanian Polish Commonwealth was divided between the three powers, we're facing the same question: Who is our ally? Because we have learned that Russia is definitely not, but the West is also a problematic ally.This is where I think the question of what it means to center the study of the region in the theory, in the practice, in the questions that actually originate from the ground up, are so important. And I'm not ditching all Western scholarship out the window. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.But I'm saying, what does it mean to balance? What does it mean to center? What does it mean to change the parameters of the conversation?BGG: Those are some weighty questions. I think they're good questions that the field is, I would say not even starting to engage with, but is engaging with, which is really excellent, but it's a long path.As anyone who is a scholar of decolonization will tell you, it doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't happen over a decade. It's sort of a continuous process. So, I think that is where we're going to have to leave it, knowing that there is so much more we could have talked about. But, Gražina, thank you so much.This has been a fascinating conversation. Thank you for joining Baltic Ways.GB: Thank you so much for having me, Ben. It's been a privilege.BGG: Thank you for listening to this episode of Baltic Ways, a co-production of the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies and the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). A note that the views expressed in this and every Baltic Ways episode do not necessarily reflect those of AABS or FPRI.To ensure you catch the next episode of Baltic Ways, make sure you're subscribed to your podcast feed or wherever you get your shows. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time. Get full access to FPRI Insights at fpriinsights.substack.com/subscribe

Ukrainians have resisted Russia's aggression for years. Since the full-scale invasion of their country in 2022, Ukrainian women in particular have taken on important roles on the frontlines, in civil society, and at home. Gražina Bielousova's research examines how Ukrainian leftist feminists advocate for their causes at home and abroad, facing distinct sets of challenges as they attempt to defend their country. The Ukrainian case is also distinct in comparison to Latvia and Lithuania, whose organizing takes on different shapes for the same cause. Bielousova joins Ben Gardner-Gill to explain these interactions and discuss the ongoing process of decolonization in Baltic Studies.TranscriptBen Gardner-Gill: Hello, and welcome to Baltic Ways. I'm your co-host, Ben Gardner-Gill. Today we're talking with Gražina Belousova. Gražina is a feminist scholar of race, religion, and gender in post-Soviet Europe. She earned her PhD from Duke University in 2022. Currently, she is a postdoctoral scholar at Vilnius University's Institute of International Relations and Political Science and a researcher at Vytautas Magnus University.Her current research project focuses on leftist feminisms in East Europe in light of Russia's war against Ukraine, which will culminate in her first book, What's Left of Feminism in East Europe.Gražina, welcome to Baltic Ways.Gražina Belousova: Thank you so much for having me, Ben.BGG: So let's kick off by just hearing a little bit more about your background. I know you finished your PhD pretty recently. Could you tell us a little bit more about how you got into academia, sort of your research interests, and what you're working on at the moment?GB: Right. Yes, I just defended my PhD in 2022. It's hard to believe that it's been nearly three years now. In my PhD, I focused on historical matters. My PhD was in religion and cultural anthropology. And one of the things that I found missing when I was trying to theorize the part of the world that I call home and that most of the world calls Eastern Europe—I realized that I was lacking a solid theory that would bridge economics, anthropology, and religious studies.I wanted to understand how religious difference, especially perceived religious difference, played a role in creating the space that we call Eastern Europe today. And that took me to 18th and 19th century travel writings by Western travelers, oftentimes who were on an official mission, to the edges or to the depths of the Russian Empire.So I've read a lot of ambassadors' letters. I've read a lot of dispatches from St. Petersburg and Moscow, trying to understand how Westerners thought about that religious difference and how that thinking structured their understanding of what this place was and why it was different. What I tried to argue is actually that perceived religious difference was at the root of thinking of Eastern Europe as something different.Now, when I chose to embark on that topic, I had to put another topic aside, which was the question of very contemporary matters, the question of leftist political thought and feminism. At that point, it felt to me more pertinent to write the kind of theory that I felt was missing. When I was given the opportunity to pursue a postdoctoral position at Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science, I pitched this idea to them.And we very quickly pulled together the application. And the next thing I knew, I was embarking on a project on leftist feminisms in Eastern Europe in light of the war in Ukraine. So, the path was windy, but here I am today, knees and elbows deep, in the project on leftist feminism.BGG: Wonderful. I mean, a windy path is going to be familiar to so many people listening.So, no surprise and no surprise as well that the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has really impacted your work and your life as it has for many of us. So tell us a little bit more about that.Over the last three years, we've been watching and seeing the horrors in Ukraine. From your perspective, from your academic work, what are some of the main things that you're looking at?GB: One of the things that I'm particularly interested in is the way that groups that are on the edges of society, on the margins of society, such as leftists, such as feminists, and especially leftist feminists—when the two come together and try to articulate their social and political vision and explain to themselves and to their fellow compatriots and oftentimes foreign donors, in my case, also Western leftist feminists, their relevance, how they're trying to articulate their position.War has a penchant for heightening nationalist tendencies. And this is not some kind of particular Eastern European pathology. War anywhere is going to produce these results. That is normal. People defend themselves and articulate themselves on the basis on which they're being attacked, on the basis on which they're being bombed.So this is what we are seeing in Ukraine. Leftism in Eastern Europe, because of the Soviet past, is often associated with Soviet nostalgia. Feminism, on the other hand, is oftentimes seen as something antithetical to national identity, something that is imported from the West, and something that either has no relevance or can be dangerous, especially when questions of national unity, questions of national defense come about.That is one of the reasons why I embarked on this journey, and this is one of the reasons why Ukraine had to be part of this picture. Because while the other countries that I'm looking at—Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Moldova—experience the threat of invasion, Ukraine is under attack.And one of the things that I'm finding is that Ukrainian leftist feminists are incredibly resourceful and incredibly gifted at articulating their relevance.One of the things that I'm going to say that stems from that understanding of leftist feminism that's erroneous, but that's pervasive, is that Ukrainian leftist feminists do not debate the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state. What is in question is the way things are happening under the conditions of war.The questions of most vulnerable people—so questions of what happens with people with disabilities, questions of what happens to single mothers, questions of what happens to the elderly people who are maybe unable to evacuate, questions of what happens to the working class people—all of these things are at the forefront of their minds. They're trying to be the advocates of their pleas to the larger society, while at the same time trying to articulate Ukraine's right to self-defense to Western leftist feminists.BGG: So they have both this tension, maybe tension is the wrong word, tell me if it isn't, but they have this tension internally where they're trying to advocate for what they see as justice or what is right with a domestic audience who, understandably, may be more frequently focused on what's happening at the front lines.And then there's also this international question, the foreign audience for these Ukrainian leftist feminists, who have a very different perspective on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And I specifically use that verbiage instead of Russia's invasion of Ukraine because they're going to think about it very differently.So let's split those out a little bit, and I want to start with the domestic. You talked about the advocacy of these leftist feminists for the most marginalized groups in society, for those who are most vulnerable.In your view, where have they been most successful, perhaps? Where have they seen actual progress happen from their advocacy?GB: One of the things that immediately comes to mind, and many of my interlocutors were directly involved with, is the nurses' movement–the unionization and self-organization of the nurses.There is a movement called Be Like Nina, referring to one of the nurses seen as a pioneer of resisting exploitation. And, of course, under the conditions of war, the labor of nurses is incredibly valuable and needed, but not always appropriately compensated. This is what we can call essential labor, especially when we talk about the front lines, where people are wounded.Many of them are wounded very badly on a daily basis. However, there are other things that are happening in the background as well. While a lot of the resources are pulled to the front, there are people who are experiencing regular daily struggles with their health. And the nurses are being stretched very thin.And this was something that was really amazing to me. This was really one of the very few instances where I saw academics who are leftist feminists actually touching the ground with their ideas: where they got involved with helping the nurses organize, but not taking the center stage, where they acted as support, as a resource, but not overtaking the movement, rather creating the conditions under which nurses themselves could articulate what it was that they needed, what their goals were.And that was incredibly impressive to me because healthcare is severely underfunded across the whole region, and to achieve such tangible goals as wage increases and regulations that empower nurses to do their job was truly impressive. With every conversation with a woman—because I specifically talk only to women—I just felt sheer amazement, because this is so contrary to so many imaginations of what civil society, self-organization, or networks are like in Eastern Europe.This is so contrary to what some have called ‘uncivil' society. What is happening is really self-organization and civil society at its best, organized by women who are oftentimes stretched very thin, not just at work, but also at home, women whose husbands are potentially on the front lines.So to me, I really cannot think of anything else that, in terms of real life impact and in terms of transforming people's lives, has been grander (I'm going to go for that word) than this.BGG: That's remarkable, and thank you for bringing that. I had very little idea of this progress and this happening.So you use the term civil society, which I think is quite apt, and Western conceptions of civil society in the region that we call Eastern Europe can be highly misguided. Let's just put it like that. I think back to a webinar that the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies (AABS) hosted on Ukrainian civil society, democratization, responses to the war, and we have this comparative Ukrainian and Baltic perspective, where we looked at how Ukrainian civil society was responding.We looked at how Baltic civil society was responding, and you're doing something similar in your research here. You're looking at Latvia and Lithuania as two of the other case studies, in addition to Poland, Moldova, and, of course, Ukraine. One thing that I think we can all observe just from watching the news, let alone being in the countries as well, is that civil society across the region has had this really robust response in the last few years.So could you speak a little bit more to that in the comparative cases outside of Ukraine that you're looking at in your research, especially Latvia and Lithuania?GB: For sure. I think that in order to theorize civil society and the region in general, we need better theory than has been used often to talk about civil society at large.Here, for example, I'm thinking about Emily Channel Justice and her work and the way that she articulates the notion of self-organization. The way that she thinks about Ukraine, especially in the context of Maidan. The way that it left a self-organization, but that can be applied also to any form of civil society, regardless of ideology, is really a network of decentralized, self-organized people's groups.If you were to look for some kind of central organizing pattern, or some kind of centralized way of doing things, most likely you're not going to find it because it's based on personal network, connections, and localized issues. And I think that's definitely something that I'm seeing in Ukraine.One of the things that I'm seeing in Lithuania and Latvia is that it's going to differ slightly because there are going to be more central organizing figures. If we talk about organizing support for Ukraine, one of the things that we're going to see is that people are going to point to nationwide initiatives.Right now in Lithuania, there is an initiative called Radarum, which is a play on words, on radar and on darom, which is a Lithuanian word for let's do it. And it's a nationwide initiative to collect funds to purchase drones and anti-drone equipment for Ukraine. And there are particular faces that we associate with this initiative.National television is running ads for it. So there's a little bit more of a centralized sense to it. But once again, I would say that this is the mainstream way of organizing civil society, which, of course, with Westernization, has taken on some of the patterns that are similar to the West.If we look towards the left, we're going to see very much that it is self-organized, small groups of people who take different initiatives, such as raising funds for medical care, such as raising funds for queer people in Ukraine. So the more mainstream we go, the more patterns that are akin to those that we see in the West we're going to see.That is also going to be true in Latvia. The further left we go, the more organic, grassroots, self-organized cells of people we're going to find who participate in smaller, less visible initiatives. So that's probably the best way that I can explain the difference.BGG: Got it. We see this distinction of centralization and decentralization.One could consider these different types of movements organic in their own ways, but different in different ways. When one thinks of leftist organizing, which has a long and rich history, organic is sort of one of the key words.It's perpetual, and these society-wide initiatives, like what's currently going on in Lithuania, that we've seen across other countries over the last few years, are maybe a little bit less frequent and less common. So there's an important distinction there.So I want to pivot to the international dimension of how the Ukrainian leftist feminists are talking, especially with Western counterparts. And by Western, we mean Western Europe. We mean American and Canadian. We mean Western, as in not Eastern Europe. So could you talk a little bit about the challenges they're facing there?I think I alluded to it earlier, and you alluded to it earlier, but could you dive a little bit more into that discourse, that dialogue between the Ukrainians and their counterparts?GB: This is the main point of contention. What does it mean to be leftist? How much does local experience shape being leftist?What is the relationship of the left to the national question? And I think this is where we are seeing the real tension. Underlying this tension, of course, is the question of Russia. Let me try to unpack this. And I'm going to start from the other end than I listed, which is with the question of Russia.Eastern European in general, and Ukrainian in particular, leftist feminists have a very different understanding as to what Russia is in terms of geopolitics than the Western counterparts are going to have. This stems from very different histories. Western leftism—especially the new wave of leftism that arose in the sixties and the seventies—in many ways has redefined itself not just through the questions of class, which I would argue were lost to some extent. They lost their centrality.And they redefined themselves through the anti-colonial, anti-racist struggle. And that struggle was particularly important because after the fall of the formal colonial system, the colonial patterns of economic exploitation, of social exploitation, of brain drain still very much persisted. And naming that and defining themselves against Western neoimperialism or neocolonialism in the Global South was one of the most defining features of the Left, both in the Global South and in the West. Now, Russia at that time had positioned itself as the ally of the colonized countries. And some of it was pure show, and some of it was actual money, resources, and help that were sent, for example, to Angola. And that made a real difference. Whether that was genuine concern for the colonized people or whether that was an ideological tool is a matter of debate.Whatever it was, it had a profound impact on the way that Western leftists relate to Russia. They continue to see Russia out of that tradition, in many ways, as an ally against Western capitalism and imperialism. Their empire, against which they define themselves, continues to be in the West, and oftentimes is seen as centered on the United States.The empire against which we define ourselves in Eastern Europe is Russia, because Russia was the colonizing power in a very real sense in the region. It was our empire that subjugated us. It was the colonial power that engaged in just about every single practice in which any colonial power engages in the region.For us, if we think outside of ourselves, Russia continues to be the colonial power in the way that it relates to Central Asia, in the way that it relates to the indigenous people of Siberia, in the way that it continues to conduct business. So both the left in the West and the left in the East continue to define themselves against the empire, but disagree on who the empire is.The fundamental difference is the question of Russia. Because of the way that Western leftists, and particularly Western leftist feminists, have been taught to see the world, the way that they have been habituated to see the world, they're unable to see Russia as an aggressor. They're unable to change their narrative about how NATO might act.And of course, the criticisms of continued Western abuses of power, especially when they center on the United States—such as Afghanistan or such as Iraq, but also here in the European context, intra-European context, Serbia is another context in which that comes up—are highly debatable questions, but they're seen a certain way. They're understood in a certain way by Western leftists. And because of Russia's criticism of the West, Western leftists see it as a natural ally, or at least as an equally guilty party.BGG: That's a really great explanation. I think the way that you've laid that out makes a lot of sense.It also harkens back to where I want to bring this, which is the debate that has been going on in Baltic studies and other academic fields, especially those focusing on the region, about thinking about Baltic history in particular as a colonial history and thinking about what it means to decolonize Baltic studies as a field, to decolonize our academic thinking. There have been a lot of discussions.I know that we were in the same room at the AABS panel at Yale last year on that fantastic panel about decolonization. Where do you think this leads with regard to your research specifically? There's already this trend in this field. I get the sense that you are an advocate and moving forward in land seeking for the field as a whole to move in that direction.What do you think the next steps are? What paths do you think could be taken? What do people need to be thinking about that they may not already be thinking about?GB: Well, I think for me, the key question when we are talking about Baltic studies and decolonization is what is it that we talk about when we talk about decolonizing Baltic studies or Baltic countries?Because I think sometimes we're talking about four different things. We are talking about the question of colonialism and coloniality. That's one. We are talking about imperialism, Russian imperialism, and Russian imperiality. We are talking about Russification and what it means to de-Russify. And we are also talking about Sovietization and what it means to de-Sovietize.And I would argue that while these four concepts are very much interrelated, they have very different agendas. So, I think it's a question of definitions. How do we define what our agenda is? Which of the four do we have in mind when we talk about decolonizing Baltic countries, Baltic studies, or anything else?And I would say that each of the four has its place and is significant. But the flip side of that, especially if we stay with the question of decolonization, is the question of Western theory, practice, and scholarship as it relates to Baltic studies. Because if we go back to the early questions in the conversation of what is civil society and whether there is a civil society, Baltic countries and the region as a whole are pathologized.Because the concept of what civil society is, or is not, was based on Western understandings and Western practices. And it rendered civil society in the region invisible. In what ways does the production of scholarship and knowledge about the region continue to be based in very unequal power relationships, in such a way that it continues to pathologize the region?And these are very uncomfortable questions, because much like, you know, in the late eighteenth century when the Lithuanian Polish Commonwealth was divided between the three powers, we're facing the same question: Who is our ally? Because we have learned that Russia is definitely not, but the West is also a problematic ally.This is where I think the question of what it means to center the study of the region in the theory, in the practice, in the questions that actually originate from the ground up, rather than are solely important. And I'm not ditching all Western scholarship out the window. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.But I'm saying, what does it mean to balance? What does it mean to center? What does it mean to change the parameters of the conversation?BGG: Those are some weighty questions. I think they're good questions that the field is, I would say not even starting to engage with, but is engaging with, which is really excellent, but it's a long path.As anyone who is a scholar of decolonization will tell you, it doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't happen over a decade. It's sort of a continuous process. So, I think that is where we're going to have to leave it, knowing that there is so much more we could have talked about. But, Gražina, thank you so much.This has been a fascinating conversation. Thank you for joining Baltic Ways.GB: Thank you so much for having me, Ben. It's been a privilege.To ensure you catch the next episode of Baltic Ways, make sure you're subscribed to your podcast feed or wherever you get your shows. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.(Image: Facebook | Феміністична майстерня)Baltic Ways is a podcast from the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies, produced in partnership with the Baltic Initiative at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AABS or FPRI. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fpribalticinitiative.substack.com

This week I wanted to give you two conversations recorded some time ago, which are part of our recurring series on intellectual humility and historical thinking. The first guest is Alex Mikaberidze, a native of Georgia, the other one, not the one with peaches. He's Professor of History and Ruth Herring Noel Endowed Chair at Louisiana State University in Shreveport. Dr. Mika Reja specializes in 18th and 19th century Europe, particularly [00:04:00] the Napoleonic Wars. He has written or edited some two dozen titles, including the critically acclaimed The Napoleonic Wars: A Global History and most recently the critically acclaimed Kutuzov: A Life in War and Peace, both of which we discussed on this podcast (in Episode 14 and again in Episode 155, and in Episode 284). He also talked about the skills of historical research in Episode 241, which means that as this is fifth appearance on the podcast,  I owe him a coffee mug.  My second guest is Scott Eric Nelson, Georgia Athletic Association Professor at the University of Georgia. Scott writes about the 19th century history, including the history of slavery, international finance, the history of science, and of global commodities. His first book was Steel Drivin' Man: The Untold Story of an American Legend, about the black folklore legend John Henry, and it won four national awards. More recently, he authored Oceans of Grain: How American Wheat Remade the World, about the competition between the United States and the Russian Empire to Feed Europe between 1789 and 1918. It was featured on the BBC, CBS, NPR, and most importantly on Historically Thinking.    

Today Josh Neal returns to interview J. Otto Pohl on his landmark - but woefully under appreciated - work of historical scholarship The Years of Great Silence. Buy Ottos book here. Follow him on twitter.Buy Josh's book here. Follow him on twitter.Follow me on Substack!From the back of the book: “This monograph provides a detailed yet concise narrative of the history of the ethnic Germans in the Russian Empire and USSR. It starts with the settlement in the Russian Empire by German colonists in the Volga, Black Sea, and other regions in 1764, tracing their development and Tsarist state policies towards them up until 1917. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Soviet policy towards its ethnic Germans varied. It shifted from a generally favorable policy in the 1920s to a much more oppressive one in the 1930s, i.e. already before the Soviet-German war.J. Otto Pohl traces the development of Soviet repression of ethnic Germans. In particular, he focuses on the years 1941 to 1955 during which this oppression reached its peak. These years became known as “the Years of Great Silence” (“die Jahre des grossen Schweigens”). In fact, until the era of glasnost (transparency) and perestroika (rebuilding) in the late 1980s, the events that defined these years for the Soviet Germans could not be legally researched, written about, or even publicly spoken about, within the USSR.”

Today Josh Neal returns to interview J. Otto Pohl on his landmark - but woefully under appreciated - work of historical scholarship The Years of Great Silence. Buy Ottos book here. Follow him on twitter.Buy Josh's book here. Follow him on twitter.Follow me on Substack!From the back of the book: “This monograph provides a detailed yet concise narrative of the history of the ethnic Germans in the Russian Empire and USSR. It starts with the settlement in the Russian Empire by German colonists in the Volga, Black Sea, and other regions in 1764, tracing their development and Tsarist state policies towards them up until 1917. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Soviet policy towards its ethnic Germans varied. It shifted from a generally favorable policy in the 1920s to a much more oppressive one in the 1930s, i.e. already before the Soviet-German war.J. Otto Pohl traces the development of Soviet repression of ethnic Germans. In particular, he focuses on the years 1941 to 1955 during which this oppression reached its peak. These years became known as “the Years of Great Silence” (“die Jahre des grossen Schweigens”). In fact, until the era of glasnost (transparency) and perestroika (rebuilding) in the late 1980s, the events that defined these years for the Soviet Germans could not be legally researched, written about, or even publicly spoken about, within the USSR.”

Today Josh Neal returns to interview J. Otto Pohl on his landmark - but woefully under appreciated - work of historical scholarship The Years of Great Silence. Buy Ottos book here. Follow him on twitter.Buy Josh's book here. Follow him on twitter.Follow me on Substack!From the back of the book: “This monograph provides a detailed yet concise narrative of the history of the ethnic Germans in the Russian Empire and USSR. It starts with the settlement in the Russian Empire by German colonists in the Volga, Black Sea, and other regions in 1764, tracing their development and Tsarist state policies towards them up until 1917. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Soviet policy towards its ethnic Germans varied. It shifted from a generally favorable policy in the 1920s to a much more oppressive one in the 1930s, i.e. already before the Soviet-German war.J. Otto Pohl traces the development of Soviet repression of ethnic Germans. In particular, he focuses on the years 1941 to 1955 during which this oppression reached its peak. These years became known as “the Years of Great Silence” (“die Jahre des grossen Schweigens”). In fact, until the era of glasnost (transparency) and perestroika (rebuilding) in the late 1980s, the events that defined these years for the Soviet Germans could not be legally researched, written about, or even publicly spoken about, within the USSR.”

About the Lecture: In this book presentation, Finkel uncovers the deep roots of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Following the rise of Russian nationalism in the nineteenth century, dominating Ukraine became the cornerstone of Russian policy. The Russian Empire, USSR and Putin's Russia had long used violence to successfully crush Ukrainian efforts to chart a separate path. Today's violence is just a more extreme version of Russia's past efforts. But unlike in the past, the people of Ukraine have overcome their deep internal divisions, and this rise of civic Ukrainian nationalism explains the successful resistance to the invasion. About the Speaker: Eugene Finkel (UW PhD in Political Science) is the Kenneth H. Keller Professor of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins SAIS. Finkel's most recent book is Intent to Destroy: Russia's Two-Hundred-Year Quest to Dominate Ukraine (Basic Books, 2024). He is also the author of Ordinary Jews: Choice and Survival during the Holocaust (Princeton University Press, 2017), and co-author of Reform and Rebellion in Weak States (Cambridge University Press, 2020) and Bread and Autocracy: Food, Politics and Security in Putin's Russia (Oxford University Press, 2023). His articles have appeared in the American Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, Comparative Political Studies, Comparative Politics, and other journals. Finkel also published articles and op-eds in The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, The Spectator and other outlets.

(To book the Provence trip with Rabbi Tatz & Rabbi Hersh - email giana.elav@gmail.com) Jewish leadership found itself in a crisis post-1881, affecting not only their options but their identity. In response, Rabbis turned to the international community for help, especially from  non-Jewish politicians. This period was exacerbated by the publication of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the notorious Kishinev pogrom of 1903, which was followed by the abortive 1905 Revolution. As a conclusion, the podcast also defines the historical context of Jewish suffering and the cycle of Jewish history.   Chapters 00:00 Understanding Jewish Suffering Through History 02:54 The Impact of the May Laws and Pogroms 05:53 The Shift in Jewish Identity and Response 09:05 The Role of Rabbinic Leadership During Crisis 12:08 International Responses to Jewish Persecution 15:00 The Kovner Circle and Smuggling Information 18:04 The Aftermath of Pogroms and Changing Policies 20:46 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Its Legacy 27:53 The Systematic Transition to Violence 30:47 The Rise of Revolutionaries and the 1905 Uprising 36:32 Understanding Jewish Suffering Through History 39:27 Insights on Divine Purpose and Jewish Existence 51:10 The Cycle of Jewish History and Its Lessons

Уроки русского с нами ||Текст и упражнения к подкасту ||Мы в Инстаграм ||В этом выпуске мы рассказываем о сериалах, которые вы можете посмотреть, если интересуетесь историей Российской империи.In this episode we will talk about TV series that you can watch if you are interested in the history of the Russian Empire.We teach Russian ||Transcript and exercises for this podcast ||Our Instagram ||

Joe, Tom, and Nate live in London talk about the time the Russian Empire sent a fleet around the world to fight the Japanese Imperial Navy. COME SEE US LIVE IN LONDON! We're performing at Rich Mix in Shoreditch on Friday, 11th April. Tickets availbable here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/1266997737339?aff=oddtdtcreator THERE'S ALSO A LIVESTREAM: get tickets to view the April 11th show from anywhere in the world! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/1266999251869?aff=oddtdtcreator Get more bonus episodes like this on our Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/lionsledbydonkeys

Episode 131. Joining us again from Brussels, Belgium is diplomat and senior European Union security advisor, Charlie Stuart. The Great Game was a geopolitical rivalry in the 19th century primarily between the British and Russian Empires. They competed for influence and control in Central Asia, a region seen as strategically vital due to its proximity to India (a key British possession) and Russia's expanding southern frontiers. You could describe current tension between NATO and Russia as the New Great Game, a competition for a strategically vital area because of its enormous mineral wealth. Is history repeating? Charlie the Diplomat breaks it down for us. Enjoy...You can find Charlie on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlie-stuart-19aa401b2/Follow Mister Kindness:Twitter/X https://twitter.com/MisterKindnessInstagram https://www.instagram.com/misterkindness_podYouTube https://www.youtube.com/@misterkindnessFacebook https://www.facebook.com/njohn.kindness.9on #africa #EU #diplomat #security #misterkindnesspodcast #englandrugby #rugby #war #thegreatgame #geopolitics #strategic #russia #china #brussels #diplomacy #podcast #EU #thegreatgame #ukraine

Phil is promising to open with another reading from his upcoming book 1945 The Reckoning - but you can always skip!After that we welcome Carolyn Harris back. This extraordinarily well-read Canadian academic is a gifted communicator and an expert on royal women - and she has all the goss about out of history's most powerful female rulers. Catherine led a remarkable life - rich in intrigue, ambition and, of course, endless sexual scandal. Having disposed of her husband she took the Russian Empire to new heights and left a massive legacy behind her - and all the while expertly manipulating the many handsome young men in her life. And yes, we will mention the story about the horse. You can buy Carolyn's book here... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Raising-Royalty-Years-Royal-Parenting/dp/1459735692And you can pre order Phil's new book here...https://www.amazon.co.uk/1945-Reckoning-Empire-Struggle-World/dp/139971449X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=#Please follow Carolyn here...https://x.com/royalhistorian***We now have a Thank You button (next to the 'three dots') for small donations that help support our work***Looking for the perfect gift for a special scandalous someone - or someone you'd like to get scandalous with? We're here to help...https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/ScandalMongers*** If you enjoy our work please consider clicking the YouTube subscribe button, even if you listen to us on an audio app. It will help our brand to grow and our content to reach new ears.The Scandal Mongers...https://x.com/mongerspodcastPhil Craig...https://x.com/philmcraigTHE SCANDAL MONGERS PODCAST is also available to watch on YouTube...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpiDbLiwypTLqMaKnNfxcTAYou can get in touch with the show via...team@podcastworld.org(place 'Scandal Mongers' in the heading) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

THIS WEEK! We have another returning guest with Michael Bonner. And we discuss Empires, and Imperialism. What do you think about when you think about Empires? Is it The Roman Empire? The Russian Empire? Or The Britis Empire? How would you define an Empire? How did Empires work? And how do Empires fit in the 21st century? Find out all this, and much, much more. THIS WEEK! On "Well That Aged Well", with "Erlend Hedegart". Find Dr. Bonner on Twitter/X Here: @DrMichaelBonnerSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/well-that-aged-well. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"The sound of waves and voices intertwine in an endless field, creating an immersive experience that echoes through the depths of the Neva River. Field recordings were processed through a resonator to expand space and enhance sub-bass frequencies. "A tape-recorded and processed recitation of the poem Requiem by Anna Akhmatova adds lyrical meaning to the composition. The Peter and Paul Fortress is not merely a tourist attraction with museums and an 18th-century architectural ensemble but also a place of memory and mourning. Once the main political prison of the Russian Empire, it held figures such as Bakunin, Dostoyevsky, Kropotkin, the Decembrists, and many other philosophers, revolutionaries, and intellectuals. "Understanding the cultural and historical context of the places we visit is essential. The sound of waves hitting the granite embankment has echoed for over 300 years—these frequencies carry deep significance, preserving the past that is worth recognizing and remembering." Peter and Paul Fortress, St. Petersburg reimagined by Oyuun Tuule. IMAGE: Alex 'Florstein' Fedorov, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons ——————— This sound is part of the Sonic Heritage project, exploring the sounds of the world's most famous sights. Find out more and explore the whole project: https://www.citiesandmemory.com/heritage

1855 brought a new dawn to Russia, and was embraced by many, although poverty remained a constant. When the Czar was assassinated, all hell broke loose and the Jews were given a stark reminder of their status. By 1897 Socialism, Zionism & Emigration seemed to offer the only routes out.   Chapters 00:00 The Shift in Jewish Education and Identity 01:46 The Impact of Tsar Alexander II's Reforms 06:40 The Rise of Jewish Assimilation and National Pride 12:46 The Economic Divide Among Jews 18:02 The Harsh Realities of Poverty in the Pale 22:34 The Reversal of Reforms and Growing Tensions 25:48 The Generational Divide and Revolutionary Movements 28:37 The Anarchist Campaign Against the Tsar 33:24 The Assassination of Tsar Alexander II 36:46 The Aftermath: Repression and Pogroms 41:04 The May Laws and Their Impact on Jewish Life 49:14 The Rise of Jewish Nationalism and Emigration 54:55 Historical Memory and Current Events  

In an alternate 1940s where Rasputin reigns over the Russian Empire, Bravo Team of Squad Scion ventures into the snowbound French-Italian Alps to sabotage a key outpost. Battling harsh conditions, unforeseen encounters, and their own limits, the team's survival hinges on resilience and ingenuity.   https://linktr.ee/sngllc   Credit: The Great War Logo by Tony Stephens Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): https://uppbeat.io/t/hartzmann/no-time-to-die

Pavel Ivanovich Ibis, or Paul Ibis, a 22-year-old Russian naval officer (he was born in today's Estonia) embarked alone on a dangerous and adventurous journey – on foot – through Taiwan in the winter of 1875. At the time, much of the island was under Qing rule; a prefecture of Fujian Province.So, what was he doing here? He left very detailed accounts of places, people and customs, and Paul Ibis seems to have had a genuine “anthropological” interest in this island. But was he also possibly a spy? Or at least gathering data for his superiors in the then-still powerful Russian Empire under Tsar Alexander II? (And, yeah, that was the Tsar who sold Alaska to the US in 1867.) Visit formosafiles.com for more.

Given the extreme circumstances, orders went out to remove informers using all available means; which led to arrests, interrogations and harsh sentences.   Meanwhile in 1844, the government issued a new decree forbidding traditional Jewish clothing and head coverings, with dire consequences.   Would Sir Moses Montefiore's visit alleviate any of these difficult challenges?   Chapters 00:00 The Struggle Against Forced Assimilation 02:55 The Role of Informants in Jewish Communities 05:47 The Consequences of Informing 08:51 The Murder of Informers and Community Response 15:01 The Rizhner's Imprisonment and Escape 21:11 The Clothing Decree and Its Implications 30:38 Resistance to Assimilation and Clothing Laws 37:55 Impact on Women and Family Dynamics 44:33 The Role of Sir Moses Montefiore 52:40 Continuing Challenges in the Russian Empire

On this week's program, we share with you “China, Russia, Europe, and the U.S.: New World Disorder?”, a virtual conversation with Professors Marc Blecher (Political Science) and Ron Suny (History) that was hosted on Thursday, March 13, 2025 by the Oberlin Club of Washington, D.C. The fundamental remaking of the post-World War II settlement—American supremacy in the capitalist world, Soviet domination of the state socialist one, and China's radical rise after a century of crisis—began to unravel five decades ago, a process that is now completing. But, in Slavoj Žižek's poetic gloss of Antonio Gramsci, “The old world is not yet dead, the new world is not yet born. It is a time of monsters.” Professors Blecher and Suny sketch some of the major tectonic forces at play, both within each pole and also among them on the international chessboard, and explore the implications. Marc Blecher is the James Monroe Professor of Politics and East Asian Studies at Oberlin College. His specialty is Chinese politics, and he also teaches Asian politics and political economy, Marxian theory, and comparative politics. His most recent books are Class and the Communist Party of China, 1921-1978, Class and the Communist Party of China, 1978-2021, Politics as a Science: A Prolegomenon, and The Making of China's Working Class: A World to Lose. Marc is now the most senior member of the Oberlin faculty, having taught since 1976. He recalls that Ron Suny became his first friend when he arrived on campus and remains his best friend. Marc expresses pride in holding the James Monroe professorship, noting that Monroe was an Oberlin alum, a member of the Oberlin faculty, a member of Congress, and an important abolitionist. When on campus you can visit the historic Monroe home which is located next to the Conservatory. Ronald Grigor Suny is the William H. Sewell Jr. Distinguished University Professor Emeritus of History and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Michigan and Emeritus Professor of Political Science and History at the University of Chicago. His intellectual interests have centered on the non-Russian nationalities of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, particularly those of the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia). Ron taught at Oberlin College from 1968-1981 and is the author of Stalin: Passage to Revolution, “They Can Live in the Desert But Nowhere Else”: A History of the Armenian Genocide, and The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Truth to Power airs every Friday at 9pm, Saturday at 11am, and Sunday at 7pm on Louisville's grassroots, community radio station, Forward Radio 106.5fm WFMP and live streams at https://forwardradio.org

Czar Nicholas hated Jews and Judaism in equal measure. He initiated 600 decrees against them over a 30 year period, and destroyed community life in Russia. The terror of his reign is relieved only by the faith and courage of families across the Pale of Settlement, carried out in defiance of the secret police and of Jewish informants.    Chapters 00:00 The Jewish Plight in the Russian Empire 02:54 Russian Policies and Jewish Resettlement 06:05 Nicholas I and the Cantonist Decree 08:57 The Impact of Conscription on Jewish Families 12:00 The Agony of Jewish Children in the Army 14:54 The Struggles of Jewish Identity and Survival 18:08 The Role of Informers and Community Dynamics 21:01 Resistance and the Response of Jewish Leaders 26:25 The Impact of the Cantonist Decrees 32:10 The Struggle for Jewish Identity 34:26 Nicholas I's Repressive Policies 36:51 Censorship and Cultural Suppression 39:43 The Role of Hevras in Jewish Life 40:40 Cohesion Amidst Oppression 44:50 The Irony of Forced Preservation 45:41 Educational Reforms and Their Consequences 53:08 Moses Montefiore's Visit to Russia 54:51 Reflections on Suffering and Resilience

Russian history is pretty wild. Tsarist Russia was in a league by itself. There were two main dynasties, The Rurikids and The Romanovs. Today we'll be discussing the "patriarch" of the Romanov Dynasty and the guy who brought Russia into the modern age. Peter Alekseyevich Romanov had decided he was going to drag Russia into the future whether they wanted to or not. Now Peter wasn't the kinda of dude to send out envoys or ambassadors to do his business, he wanted to stretch his legs around Europe personally. Learning the crafts of ship building from the Dutch to build Russia's first navy. Seeing how artillery worked Prussia to development a modern army. Studying the systems of governance used by other European powers all while his "Grand Embassy" drank and partied their way across the continent. His accomplishments can still be felt today however, there's always another side to the story, and Peter's gets pretty dark. Join us as we discuss the life and times of Peter the Great. Support the show

Romania was, in territorial terms, one of the unlikely beneficiaries of the Paris Peace Conference. It acquired land from the disintegrated Austro Hungarian and Russian Empires and from new states like Hungary itself. the core Romanian lands, the Regat, found it challenging to absorb new territories, even when they were majority ethnically Romanian, and the strong desire for a more federalist state was resisted by those elites and power structures who had chiefly benefitted from a strong, centralised Romanian state to begin with.Help the podcast to continue bringing you history each weekIf you enjoy the Explaining History podcast and its many years of content and would like to help the show continue, please consider supporting it in the following ways:If you want to go ad-free, you can take out a membership hereOrYou can support the podcast via Patreon hereOr you can just say some nice things about it here Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/explaininghistory. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For centuries, Russia was home to the largest Jewish community in the world. But why did Jews choose to move to a country that never wanted them? Understanding this complex history is at the heart of Jewish Modern history.  And was Kiev or Moscow the capital of the Empire.   Chapters 00:00 Political Intrigue 11:01 The History of Russian Jewry 25:48 Catherine the Great's Reign and Jewish Policies 27:41 The Transformation of the Russian Empire 30:00 The Jewish Population in Eastern Europe 34:21 The Impact of Russian Rule on Jewish Life 37:22 Resistance and Rebellion in Poland 40:01 Diverging Paths: Prussian and Galician Jews 42:11 The Russian Government's Approach to Jews 45:05 The Long Nightmare of Russian Governance 50:28 Reactions from Jewish Leaders 54:00 The Legacy of Eastern European Jewry

1993 - Born in Lviv, Ukraine - Artist, illustrator, Doctor of PhilosophyThe primary media are easel graphics, mural art, digital art, and multimedia installation. Since February 24, 2022, Mykhailo has created military posters supporting Ukraine and volunteers. He believes in the power of visual signs because they can ignore geographical and language barriers, making their way straight to the human heart.----------LINKS:https://neivanmade.com/https://www.instagram.com/neivanmade/?hl=enhttps://x.com/neivanmadehttps://www.facebook.com/Neivanmade/https://www.ukraineablaze.art/en/artists/neivanmade/https://uk.pinterest.com/neivanmade/----------SILICON CURTAIN FILM FUNDRAISERA project to make a documentary film in Ukraine, to raise awareness of Ukraine's struggle and in supporting a team running aid convoys to Ukraine's front-line towns.https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extras----------SILICON CURTAIN LIVE EVENTS - FUNDRAISER CAMPAIGN 10 Events in 10 months - Advocacy for a Ukrainian victory with Silicon Curtainhttps://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extrasOur first live events this year in Lviv and Kyiv were a huge success. Now we need to maintain this momentum, and change the tide towards a Ukrainian victory. The Silicon Curtain Roadshow is an ambitious campaign to run 10 events in 10 months (at a minimum). We may add more venues to the program, depending on the success of the fundraising campaign. https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extrasWe need to scale up our support for Ukraine, and these events are designed to have a major impact. Your support in making it happen is greatly appreciated. All events will be recorded professionally and published for free on the Silicon Curtain channel. Where possible, we will also live-stream events.https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extras----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------TRUSTED CHARITIES ON THE GROUND:Save Ukrainehttps://www.saveukraineua.org/Superhumans - Hospital for war traumashttps://superhumans.com/en/UNBROKEN - Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukrainehttps://unbroken.org.ua/Come Back Alivehttps://savelife.in.ua/en/Chefs For Ukraine - World Central Kitchenhttps://wck.org/relief/activation-chefs-for-ukraineUNITED24 - An initiative of President Zelenskyyhttps://u24.gov.ua/Serhiy Prytula Charity Foundationhttps://prytulafoundation.orgNGO “Herojam Slava”https://heroiamslava.org/kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyślhttps://kharpp.com/NOR DOG Animal Rescuehttps://www.nor-dog.org/home/----------PLATFORMS:Twitter: https://twitter.com/CurtainSiliconInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/siliconcurtain/Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/4thRZj6NO7y93zG11JMtqmLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/finkjonathan/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------Welcome to the Silicon Curtain podcast. Please like and subscribe if you like the content we produce. It will really help to increase the popularity of our content in YouTube's algorithm. Our material is now being made available on popular podcasting platforms as well, such as Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

rWotD Episode 2849: Coalition forces of the Napoleonic Wars Welcome to Random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia’s vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Thursday, 20 February 2025 is Coalition forces of the Napoleonic Wars.The Coalition forces of the Napoleonic Wars were composed of Napoleon Bonaparte's enemies: the United Kingdom, the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Sicily, Kingdom of Sardinia, Dutch Republic, Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of Portugal, Kingdom of Sweden, and various German and Italian states at differing times in the wars. At their height, the Coalition could field formidable combined forces of about 1,740,000 strong. This outnumbered the 1.1 million French soldiers. The breakdown of the more active armies are: Austria, 570,000; Britain, 250,000; Prussia, 300,000; and Russia, 600,000.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:15 UTC on Thursday, 20 February 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Coalition forces of the Napoleonic Wars on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Emma.

With Eliot traveling Eric welcomes Eugene Finkel, the Kenneth H. Keller Professor of International Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) to discuss his recent book Intent to Destroy: Russia's Two-Hundred Year Quest to Dominate Ukraine (New York:  Basic Books, 2024). They discuss the long-term Russian effort to dominate, subordinate and eliminate Ukrainian nationality, culture and language. They touch on the pillars of Russian national identify and how Russians came to see Ukraine and Ukrainians as inferior members of a hierarchy of Russian-ness and how the emergence of Ukrainian nationalism in Poland and later the Austro-Hungarian empire came to represent an existential threat to Russian ethnic domination of St. Petersburg's multinational empire in the run up to world war one. They discuss the collapse of the Russian Empire and the emergence of an independent Ukraine, the reasons for its failure and Stalin's efforts to destroy Ukrainian nationalism, his drive for collectivization of agriculture and the ensuing Holodomor -- a man-made famine that cost perhaps as many as 5 million lives. They also discuss Ukraine during World War Two, caught between the Wehrmacht and Red Army. The collaboration of some Ukrainian nationalists with the Nazis and the guerrilla war to prevent Soviet re-occupation of Ukraine which lasted into the early 1950s, cost perhaps 100 thousand lives and gave birth to the Russian notion that Ukrainian nationalism was inherently fascist. They consider Ukraine's independence in 1992, the negotiation of the Budapest Memorandum and the myth that Ukraine "gave up nuclear weapons, as well as the cultural shift that will have to take place in Russia if there is to be lasting peace that ends the current war. Intent to Destroy: Russia's Two-Hundred-Year Quest to Dominate Ukraine: https://a.co/d/5fsdy8L Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

 You know the Great Wall of China, but what-if ‘Catherine the Great' dreamed of her own ‘Great Wall' in Crimea?

THIS WEEK! We have another returning guest with Sergei Antonov, and once again we take a look at The Russian Empire. This time we take a look at what life was like in the Russian Empire. From the lowest serf to the Russian Soldier, To the Nobility, and the Russian Tsar. Find out all this, and much more. This week on "Well That Aged Well", with "Erlend Hedegart".Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/well-that-aged-well. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It couldn't be truer that people pay attention to who the President, King, or Prime Minister is hanging out with.  It would make sense that the people closest to the person in charge would have at least a voice in the ear of the person calling the shots.  We have an interesting situation going on now, but imagine if the person closest to the person in charge of an empire was a self-proclaimed mystic and faith healer?   What would it look like with Ms. Cleo in the ear of George W. during the tough days following 9/11?  Enter the tale of Rasputin.  Grigori Rasputin came from the remote area of Siberia to become one of the major influences of the Russian Empire.  His rise to prominence was carved by the path of religion and many thought he had healing powers, including the King and Queen.  But did Rasputin live the holy life he preached about?  What was his relationship with the King's children really like?  If he wasn't funny, and not good looking at all, how did he pull so much tail?  We'll dive into all this and more in the Rasputin episode of AHC Podcast.       Intro Music Credit: TIK TOK [No Copyright Sound] Trap Beat [Hip Hop, Rap, Instrumental] [ FREE USE MUSIC ] - Deceiver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dJC5lLHnXU&t=0s https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/         Citations: Smith, D. (2016). Rasputin: Faith, power, and the twilight of the Romanovs. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.   Landau, S. (2018, August 7). The long, hard journey of Rasputin's penis. All That's Interesting. Retrieved from https://allthatsinteresting.com/rasputin-penis Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Grigori Rasputin. In Wikipedia. Retrieved January 25, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin

On 9 January, Ukraine's Parliament has recognised the Russian Empire's 19th century genocide of the Circassians, during which Russian forced killed or deported hundreds of thousands of Circassians from their homeland in the Caucasus. This week, OC Media's Yousef Bardouka talks about the genocide and its impact on the Circassians and the Caucasus and the significance of the resolution, while Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko, a co-author of the resolution, talks about how the bill came to be and Ukraine's role in supporting the people of the North Caucasus. Read more: Ukraine recognises Circassian Genocide Support independent journalism in the Caucasus and become an OC Media Member: Join today. …or donate to the collective Georgian media security fund.

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

The history of antisemitism in Europe stretches back as far as Ancient Rome, but persecutions of Jews became widespread during the Crusades, beginning in the early 11th century when the wholesale massacre of entire communities became commonplace. From the 12th century, the justification for this state-sanctioned violence became the blood libel accusation: the idea that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood in the celebration of Passover. Nowhere in Europe was the blood libel more tenacious, credible, and long lived than in the Russian Empire, particularly during the late Imperial period, which saw large scale pogroms and harsh restrictions visited upon the empire's Jewish population. The Russian Revolution of 1917 attracted many Jews to its cause, thanks in large measure to Bolshevik condemnations of antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish minority. These numbers grew in the wake of the brutal Civil War that followed from 1918 - 1922 when the White Army revived the pogrom with particular vigor. What happened after the Bolshevik victory is the subject of Elissa Bemporad's new book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford UP, 2019), which won the National Jewish Book Award (Modern Jewish Thought and Experience). Bemporad probes the underbelly of the "Soviet myth"— that the USSR had eradicated the pogroms, banished the notion of a blood libel to the scrapheap of other opiates for the people, and vanquished antisemitism as part of the regime's broad anti-religious campaign — and discovers that both pogroms and the blood libel had a robust afterlife in the USSR. As she traces changing attitudes towards Jews in the USSR, Bemporad also examines the uneasy and often ambivalent but mutually dependent, and ever-shifting relationship between the regime and the Jewish population as the Soviet century unfolds. Legacy of Blood looks at the re-emergence of overt antisemitism in the occupied territories of the USSR during World War II and the troubled return of the Jews to mainstream society after the war. The result is a meticulously researched, thought-provoking, and eminently readable book that adds much to both Jewish and Russian historical scholarship. Elissa Bemporad is an Associate Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the Jerry and William Ungar Chair in East European Jewish History, Queens College of CUNY. She is the author of Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (Indiana University Press, 2013) and the forthcoming A Comprehensive History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, vol I (NYU Press). Jennifer Eremeeva is an American expatriate writer who writes about travel, culture, cuisine and culinary history, Russian history, and Royal History, with bylines in Reuters, Fodor's, USTOA, LitHub, The Moscow Times, and Russian Life. She is the award-winning author of Lenin Lives Next Door: Marriage, Martinis, and Mayhem in Moscow and Have Personality Disorder, Will Rule Russia: A Pocket Guide to Russian History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/genocide-studies

When the Great War began, the Russian Empire was home to more than five million Jews, the most densely settled Jewish population anywhere in the world. Thirty years later, only remnants of this civilization remained. The years of war from 1914 to 1918 launched the forces that scattered and destroyed Eastern European Jewry and transformed it in ways that were second only to the Holocaust in their magnitude. Yet little has been written about the experience of Russia's Jews during this time.  A Nation of Refugees: Russia's Jews in World War I (Oxford UP, 2024) uncovers this untold history by revealing the stories of how Jewish civilians experienced the war and its violent epicenter on the Eastern Front. It presents a history of rupture and dispersion at a human level, with accounts of individuals who struggled to survive and the activists who worked to aid them. The stories in this book are drawn from hundreds of documents held in previously inaccessible archives, the Russian and Yiddish press, and the personal accounts of refugees, relief workers, writers, artists, and political leaders. This is a history of the first state violence and military aggression directed at Jewish civilians anywhere in modern Europe. It is a history of refugees, so numerous and scattered across Russia that they represented the fate of the Jewish nation itself. And it is a history of how Russia's Jews formed the largest and most influential humanitarian campaign in their history, and of their leaders and institutions that endured long past the years of war and revolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

When the Great War began, the Russian Empire was home to more than five million Jews, the most densely settled Jewish population anywhere in the world. Thirty years later, only remnants of this civilization remained. The years of war from 1914 to 1918 launched the forces that scattered and destroyed Eastern European Jewry and transformed it in ways that were second only to the Holocaust in their magnitude. Yet little has been written about the experience of Russia's Jews during this time.  A Nation of Refugees: Russia's Jews in World War I (Oxford UP, 2024) uncovers this untold history by revealing the stories of how Jewish civilians experienced the war and its violent epicenter on the Eastern Front. It presents a history of rupture and dispersion at a human level, with accounts of individuals who struggled to survive and the activists who worked to aid them. The stories in this book are drawn from hundreds of documents held in previously inaccessible archives, the Russian and Yiddish press, and the personal accounts of refugees, relief workers, writers, artists, and political leaders. This is a history of the first state violence and military aggression directed at Jewish civilians anywhere in modern Europe. It is a history of refugees, so numerous and scattered across Russia that they represented the fate of the Jewish nation itself. And it is a history of how Russia's Jews formed the largest and most influential humanitarian campaign in their history, and of their leaders and institutions that endured long past the years of war and revolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

When the Great War began, the Russian Empire was home to more than five million Jews, the most densely settled Jewish population anywhere in the world. Thirty years later, only remnants of this civilization remained. The years of war from 1914 to 1918 launched the forces that scattered and destroyed Eastern European Jewry and transformed it in ways that were second only to the Holocaust in their magnitude. Yet little has been written about the experience of Russia's Jews during this time.  A Nation of Refugees: Russia's Jews in World War I (Oxford UP, 2024) uncovers this untold history by revealing the stories of how Jewish civilians experienced the war and its violent epicenter on the Eastern Front. It presents a history of rupture and dispersion at a human level, with accounts of individuals who struggled to survive and the activists who worked to aid them. The stories in this book are drawn from hundreds of documents held in previously inaccessible archives, the Russian and Yiddish press, and the personal accounts of refugees, relief workers, writers, artists, and political leaders. This is a history of the first state violence and military aggression directed at Jewish civilians anywhere in modern Europe. It is a history of refugees, so numerous and scattered across Russia that they represented the fate of the Jewish nation itself. And it is a history of how Russia's Jews formed the largest and most influential humanitarian campaign in their history, and of their leaders and institutions that endured long past the years of war and revolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

When the Great War began, the Russian Empire was home to more than five million Jews, the most densely settled Jewish population anywhere in the world. Thirty years later, only remnants of this civilization remained. The years of war from 1914 to 1918 launched the forces that scattered and destroyed Eastern European Jewry and transformed it in ways that were second only to the Holocaust in their magnitude. Yet little has been written about the experience of Russia's Jews during this time.  A Nation of Refugees: Russia's Jews in World War I (Oxford UP, 2024) uncovers this untold history by revealing the stories of how Jewish civilians experienced the war and its violent epicenter on the Eastern Front. It presents a history of rupture and dispersion at a human level, with accounts of individuals who struggled to survive and the activists who worked to aid them. The stories in this book are drawn from hundreds of documents held in previously inaccessible archives, the Russian and Yiddish press, and the personal accounts of refugees, relief workers, writers, artists, and political leaders. This is a history of the first state violence and military aggression directed at Jewish civilians anywhere in modern Europe. It is a history of refugees, so numerous and scattered across Russia that they represented the fate of the Jewish nation itself. And it is a history of how Russia's Jews formed the largest and most influential humanitarian campaign in their history, and of their leaders and institutions that endured long past the years of war and revolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

When the Great War began, the Russian Empire was home to more than five million Jews, the most densely settled Jewish population anywhere in the world. Thirty years later, only remnants of this civilization remained. The years of war from 1914 to 1918 launched the forces that scattered and destroyed Eastern European Jewry and transformed it in ways that were second only to the Holocaust in their magnitude. Yet little has been written about the experience of Russia's Jews during this time.  A Nation of Refugees: Russia's Jews in World War I (Oxford UP, 2024) uncovers this untold history by revealing the stories of how Jewish civilians experienced the war and its violent epicenter on the Eastern Front. It presents a history of rupture and dispersion at a human level, with accounts of individuals who struggled to survive and the activists who worked to aid them. The stories in this book are drawn from hundreds of documents held in previously inaccessible archives, the Russian and Yiddish press, and the personal accounts of refugees, relief workers, writers, artists, and political leaders. This is a history of the first state violence and military aggression directed at Jewish civilians anywhere in modern Europe. It is a history of refugees, so numerous and scattered across Russia that they represented the fate of the Jewish nation itself. And it is a history of how Russia's Jews formed the largest and most influential humanitarian campaign in their history, and of their leaders and institutions that endured long past the years of war and revolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

"Saint Seraphim was born in the town of Kursk in 1759. From tender childhood he was under the protection of the most holy Mother of God, who, when he was nine years old, appeared to him in a vision, and through her icon of Kursk, healed him from a grave sickness from which he had not been expected to recover. At the age of nineteen he entered the monastery of Sarov, where he amazed all with his obedience, his lofty asceticism, and his great humility. In 1780 the Saint was stricken with a sickness which he manfully endured for three years, until our Lady the Theotokos healed him, appearing to him with the Apostles Peter and John. He was tonsured a monk in 1786, being named for the holy Hieromartyr Seraphim, Bishop of Phanarion (Dec. 4), and was ordained deacon a year later. In his unquenchable love for God, he continually added labours to labours, increasing in virtue and prayer with titan strides. Once, during the Divine Liturgy of Holy and Great Thursday he was counted worthy of a vision of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who appeared encompassed by the heavenly hosts. After this dread vision, he gave himself over to greater labours.   "In 1794, Saint Seraphim took up the solitary life in a cell in the forest. This period of extreme asceticism lasted some fifteen years, until 1810. It was at this time that he took upon himself one of the greatest feats of his life. Assailed with despondency and a storm of contrary thoughts raised by the enemy of our salvation, the Saint passed a thousand nights on a rock, continuing in prayer until God gave him complete victory over the enemy. On another occasion, he was assaulted by robbers, who broke his chest and his head with their blows, leaving him almost dead. Here again, he began to recover after an appearance of the most Holy Theotokos, who came to him with the Apostles Peter and John, and pointing to Saint Seraphim, uttered these awesome words, 'This is one of my kind.'   "In 1810, at the age of fifty, weakened by his more than human struggles, Saint Seraphim returned to the monastery for the third part of his ascetical labours, in which he lived as a recluse, until 1825. For the first five years of his reclusion, he spoke to no one at all, and little is known of this period. After five years, he began receiving visitors little by little, giving counsel and consolation to ailing souls. In 1825, the most holy Theotokos appeared to the Saint and revealed to him that it was pleasing to God that he fully end his reclusion; from this time the number of people who came to see him grew daily. It was also at the command of the holy Virgin that he undertook the spiritual direction of the Diveyevo Convent. He healed bodily ailments, foretold things to come, brought hardened sinners to repentance, and saw clearly the secrets of the heart of those who came to him. Through his utter humility and childlike simplicity, his unrivalled ascetical travails, and his angel-like love for God, he ascended to the holiness and greatness of the ancient God-bearing Fathers and became, like Anthony for Egypt, the physician for the whole Russian land. In all, the most holy Theotokos appeared to him twelve times in his life. The last was on Annunciation, 1831, to announce to him that he would soon enter into his rest. She appeared to him accompanied by twelve virgins martyrs and monastic saints with Saint John the Baptist and Saint John the Theologian. With a body ailing and broken from innumerable hardships, and an unspotted soul shining with the light of Heaven, the Saint lived less than two years after this, falling asleep in peace on January 2, 1833, chanting Paschal hymns. On the night of his repose, the righteous Philaret of the Glinsk Hermitage beheld his soul ascending to Heaven in light. Because of the universal testimony to the singular holiness of his life, and the seas of miracles that he performed both in life and after death, his veneration quickly spread beyond the boundaries of the Russian Empire to every corner of the earth. See also July 19." (Great Horologion)   July 19 is the commemoration of the uncovering of St Seraphim's holy relics, which was attended by Tsar Nicholas II.   Saint Seraphim's life became a perpetual celebration of Pascha: in his later years he dressed in a white garment, greeted everyone, regardless of the season, with "Christ is Risen!" and chanted the Pascha service every day of the year

Author Richard Poe discusses his book on the British plot for world domination, how communism was created, the role of the Jews and the occult, how British agents were used to foment the Bolshevik revolution and disintegrate rivals such as the Russian Empire, the French Revolution as the first Color Revolution which elites use to destroy nations, how the Young England movement from two centuries ago that called for a return to feudalism sounds just like today's Great Reset project, conspiracy literature, and more! Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack Geopolitics & Empire · Richard Poe: The British, The Jews, Communism, & World Government #501 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Donate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donations Consult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.com Become a Sponsor https://geopoliticsandempire.com/sponsors **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopolitics easyDNS (use code GEOPOLITICS for 15% off!) https://easydns.com Escape The Technocracy course (15% discount using link) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopolitics LegalShield https://hhrvojemoric.wearelegalshield.com Sociatates Civis (CitizenHR, CitizenIT, CitizenPL) https://societates-civis.com Wise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Richard Poe Websites Website https://www.richardpoe.com Book https://www.amazon.com/British-Invented-Communism-Blamed-Jews/dp/B0D46BB4WV X https://x.com/RealRichardPoe Substack https://richardpoe.substack.com Previous appearance on Geopolitics & Empire https://geopoliticsandempire.com/2021/05/08/richard-poe-globalism-rooted-in-british-liberal-imperialism-not-american-empire About Richard Poe Richard Poe is a New York Times-bestselling author and award-winning journalist. He has written many bestselling books, on many subjects, both fiction and non-fiction. Poe's best-known book is The Shadow Party, co-written with David Horowitz. His latest book is How the British Invented Communism (And Blamed It on the Jews). *Podcast intro music is from the song "The Queens Jig" by "Musicke & Mirth" from their album "Music for Two Lyra Viols": http://musicke-mirth.de/en/recordings.html (available on iTunes or Amazon)

Author Richard Poe discusses his book on the British plot for world domination, how communism was created, the role of the Jews and the occult, how British agents were used to foment the Bolshevik revolution and disintegrate rivals such as the Russian Empire, the French Revolution as the first Color Revolution which elites use to destroy nations, how the Young England movement from two centuries ago that called for a return to feudalism sounds just like today's Great Reset project, conspiracy literature, and more! Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack Geopolitics & Empire · Richard Poe: The British, The Jews, Communism, & World Government #501 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Donate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donations Consult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.com Become a Sponsor https://geopoliticsandempire.com/sponsors **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopolitics easyDNS (use code GEOPOLITICS for 15% off!) https://easydns.com Escape The Technocracy course (15% discount using link) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopolitics LegalShield https://hhrvojemoric.wearelegalshield.com Sociatates Civis (CitizenHR, CitizenIT, CitizenPL) https://societates-civis.com Wise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Richard Poe Websites Website https://www.richardpoe.com Book https://www.amazon.com/British-Invented-Communism-Blamed-Jews/dp/B0D46BB4WV X https://x.com/RealRichardPoe Substack https://richardpoe.substack.com Previous appearance on Geopolitics & Empire https://geopoliticsandempire.com/2021/05/08/richard-poe-globalism-rooted-in-british-liberal-imperialism-not-american-empire About Richard Poe Richard Poe is a New York Times-bestselling author and award-winning journalist. He has written many bestselling books, on many subjects, both fiction and non-fiction. Poe's best-known book is The Shadow Party, co-written with David Horowitz. His latest book is How the British Invented Communism (And Blamed It on the Jews). *Podcast intro music is from the song "The Queens Jig" by "Musicke & Mirth" from their album "Music for Two Lyra Viols": http://musicke-mirth.de/en/recordings.html (available on iTunes or Amazon)

We examine the development Russian Empire of the 1800s and see what factors set them on a collision course with Japan in 1904.Support the show My latest novel, "Califia's Crusade," is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Apple Books, Bookshop.org, and many other online platforms!

African American journalist Terrell Jermain Starr sees the Story of Ukrainian resilience as a Black experience. Russia is not only a colonial state, but it's also a supremacist state, he says. Terrell has made it his mission to build bridges of trust between Americans and Ukraine. This is clearly vital, as he explains that African Americans are some of the most exposed people to Russian propaganda and disinformation within the US. Today we'll be exploring the parallels to discrimination faced by Black people in the US, with centuries long persecution of Ukrainian identity by the Russian Empire. ---------- Terrell Jermaine Starr is the host and founder of Black Diplomats Official YouTube channel, where he posts regular dispatches from Ukraine that feature underrepresented voices and share how civilians are living through the war. Terrell was in Ukraine when the war broke out and provided daily video reports via Twitter that generated millions of views and dozens of appearances on network television where he spoke to millions of people around the world. What makes his work so interesting is that he explains the Russian colonialism that Ukrainians experience through the lens of white supremacy that Black people in the United States and around the world have endured. He helps people get past the challenge of seeing Ukrainians as merely white and, therefore, unable to be oppressed. Before Terrell focused on Ukraine full-time, he reported for various Black-owned and run media outlets in the U.S., including The Root where he was a national correspondent and covered presidential, state and local politics. He has a master's degree in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies and a second in Journalism from the University of Illinois. He graduated from Philander Smith College, a historically Black school, with a bachelors in English. ---------- LINKS: https://www.youtube.com/@BlackDiplomatsOfficial https://www.instagram.com/terrelljstarr/?hl=en https://bsky.app/profile/terrelljstarr.bsky.social https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61569344763189 https://x.com/terrelljstarr https://terrellstarr.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/terrellstarrukraine/ Terrell's fundraiser to create a series on black people in Ukraine: https://x.com/terrelljstarr/status/1861449586188984699 ---------- ARTICLES: https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/05/28/story-of-ukraine-is-a-black-experience-says-african-american-reporter/ https://www.ukrainer.net/terrell-star/ https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/19/person-of-interest-terrell-jermaine-starr-00018630 ---------- SILICON CURTAIN FILM FUNDRAISER A project to make a documentary film in Ukraine, to raise awareness of Ukraine's struggle and in supporting a team running aid convoys to Ukraine's frontline towns. https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extras ---------- SUPPORT THE CHANNEL: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain https://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain ---------- TRUSTED CHARITIES ON THE GROUND: Save Ukraine https://www.saveukraineua.org/ Superhumans - Hospital for war traumas https://superhumans.com/en/ UNBROKEN - Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukraine https://unbroken.org.ua/ Come Back Alive https://savelife.in.ua/en/ Chefs For Ukraine - World Central Kitchen https://wck.org/relief/activation-chefs-for-ukraine UNITED24 - An initiative of President Zelenskyy https://u24.gov.ua/ Serhiy Prytula Charity Foundation https://prytulafoundation.org NGO “Herojam Slava” https://heroiamslava.org/ kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyśl https://kharpp.com/ NOR DOG Animal Rescue https://www.nor-dog.org/home/ ----------

Not many people today know about the radical history of the Jewish Labor Bund, the Jewish socialist party founded within the Russian Empire in 1897—but they should. Understanding the Bund is essential for understanding the long and critically relevant tradition of Jewish anti-Zionism. “From the Bund's very earliest days,” artist and author Molly Crabapple says, members “saw that if there was an attempt to create a Jewish ethno-state in Palestine, it would mean a state of eternal war with both the neighboring countries [and] the Palestinians… inside that country.”In this episode of The Marc Steiner Show, Marc speaks with Crabapple about what the history of the Bund can teach us today in the midst of Israel's genocidal war on Palestine, and about how anti-Zionist Jews, including Crabapple herself, continue to fight for a socialist alternative to Zionism.Studio Production: David HebdenAudio Post-Production: Alina NehlichHelp us continue producing radically independent news and in-depth analysis by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Sign up for our newsletterLike us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterDonate to support this podcast

In an epic handshake of history, the Qing and Russian Empires hammer out the first major treaty between East and West. It's good for Great Qing, it's maybe good for Russia... but it's definitely not good for the Mongols who got iced out of the negotiations by a couple of Puritan hustlers, like Galdan Khan and his harried host of Dzungars. Not good news at all... Please support the show!: patreon.com/thehistoryofchina Time Period Covered: 1690-91 CE Major Historical Figures: Qing Dynasty: The Kangxi Emperor (Aisin-Gioro Xuanye) [r. 1654-1722] Jean-Francois Gerbillon, Puritan Missionary Tómas Pereira, Puritan Missionary Russian Empire: Count Fedor Alekseevich Golovin [1650-1706] Mongols/Tibetans: Lamist Tibetans: The Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso [1617–1682] Dzungar Mongols: Galdan, the Boshugtu Khan [r. 1679-1697] Khalkha Mongols: Jebzongdanba Khutukhtu Tusiyetu Khan Chechen Khan Tsewang Rabdan Major Sources Cited: Liu, Cixin. Death's End. Munkh-Erdene, Lamsuren. The Taiji Government and the Rise of the Warrior State. Perdue, Denis. China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia. Thokmay, Darig. “Game Changers of the Tibetan Buddhist Political Order in Central Asia in the Early Eighteenth Century” in The Tibet Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last time we spoke about the Guangzhou, Gansu and Red Spear Uprisings. During China's Warlord Era, the CCP faced many challenges as they sought to implement land revolutions and armed uprisings. Following the Nanchang and Autumn Harvest uprisings, the CCP held an emergency meeting criticizing Chen Duxiu for his appeasement of the KMT right wing. With strong encouragement from Soviet advisors, the CCP planned a major uprising to seize control of Guangdong province. In November 1927, the CCP saw an opportunity as petty warlords in Guangdong and Guangxi engaged in conflict. Zhang Fakui's troops, vulnerable and demoralized, were targeted by the CCP. Mobilizing workers and peasants, the CCP initiated the Guangzhou Uprising. The uprising was ultimately suppressed by superior NRA troops, resulting in heavy CCP casualties and brutal reprisals. The failed uprisings, though unable to achieve immediate goals, ignited a persistent revolutionary spirit within the CCP, marking the beginning of a prolonged civil conflict that would shape China's future.   #121 The Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1929 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. All the way back in 1919, the brand new Soviet government's assistance Commissar of foreign affairs, Lev Karakhan, issued a manifesto to the Beiyang government, promising the return of the Chinese Eastern Railway at zero financial cost. That statement was made in late July and alongside the railway, he also mentioned relinquishing a lot of rights the former Russian Empire had acquired from unequal treaties, such as the Boxer Protocol. This all became known as the Karakhan Manifesto, and it was formed in a time when the Soviets were fighting the Russian Civil War, advancing east into Siberia. In order to secure the war in Siberia the Soviets had to establish good relations with the Chinese. Yet six months after the july manifesto, Karakhan personally handed over a second version of said manifesto, one that did not influence the rather nice deal of handing over the Chinese eastern railway for free. The Soviets official statement was that they had accidentally promised the deal prior. The truth of the matter was some real politik work at play. The Soviets had been trying to secure a Sino-Soviet alliance against the Japanese, but it looked to them it would never come to be so they simply took the deal off the table.  Henceforth the issue cause a lot of friction. In March of 1920 the Fengtian forces disarmed White Russian Troops along the railway and seized control over its operations. In February of 1922 China and the USSR signed a agreement stipulating the Beiyang government would set up a special agency to manage the railway. Then in November the Chinese announced an area within 11 km along the railway would be designated a Eastern Province special district. In December the Soviet Union officially formed and by May the two nations agreed to settle a list of issues. The Soviets agreed to abolish all the unequal treaties formed by the Russian Empire handing over all the leased territories, consular jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, Boxer payments and such, but the Chinese Eastern Railway would be jointly managed by China and the USSR. Now since the railway sat in the area that Zhang Zuolin came to control, in September of 1924 the Soviets signed an agreement with the Fengtian clique. In this agreement, the Soviets lessened the 80 year lease over the railway to 60 years. The Soviets also promised to hand full control to Chinese administrators, but had a trick up their sleeve. The Soviets let the Chinese think they were adding workers and officials loyal to them, in reality the Soviets were creating more jobs on the railway while hiring Soviet workers. In the end the Soviets controlled roughly 67% of the key positions. When Zhang Zuolin went to war with Feng Yuxiang's Guominjun this changed things considerably. In December of 1925, Zhang Zuolin's army owed the Chinese eastern railway some 14 million rubles, prompting the Soviet administrator over the railway, Ivanov to prohibit Zhang Zuolin's army from using it. Fengtian commander Zhang Huanxiang simply arrested Ivanov disregarding his ban. The Soviets then sent an ultimatum to the Beiyang government demanding his release. So Zhang Zuolin ran to the Japanese to mediate. Things smoothed over until 1928 when the Huanggutun incident saw Zhang Zuolin assassinated. As we saw at the end of the northern expedition, his son Zhang Xueliang responded by raising the KMT flag on December 29th of 1928, joining Chiang Kai-Shek. The next day Zhang Xueliang was made commander in chief of the Northeast.  Now Chiang Kai-Shek's government had broken diplomatic relations with the USSR after the Shanghai massacre purge. Thus Zhang Xueliang felt the old treaties signed by his father with the Soviets were null and void and looked upon the Chinese Eastern Railway enviously. To give some context outside of China. At this point in time, the USSR was implementing rural collectivization, ie; the confiscation of land and foodstuffs. This led to wide scale conflict with peasants, famines broke out, I would say the most well known one being the Holodmor in Ukraine. Hundreds of millions of people starved to death. The USSR was also still not being recognized by many western powers. Thus from the perspective of Zhang Xueliang, it looked like the USSR were fraught with internal and external difficulties, they had pretty much no friends, so taking the railway would probably be a walk in the park.  Zhang Xueliang began diplomatically, but negotiations were going nowhere, so he got tougher. He ordered his officials to take back control over the Chinese Eastern Railway zone police, municipal administration, taxation, land, everything. He instructed Zhang Jinghui, the governor of Harbin's special administrative zone to dispatch military police to search the Soviet embassy in Harbin and arrest the consul general. Zhang Jinghui did so and closed the Soviet consulates in Harbin, Qiqihar and Hailar. All of this of course pissed off the Soviets who responded by protesting the new Nanjing government, demanding the release of their people, while increasing troops to the border of Manchuria. The Soviets announced they were willing to reduce their control over the railway as a concession. This entire situation became known as the May 27th incident and unleashed a tit for tat situation. On July 13th, the Soviets sent an ultimatum giving three days for a response "If a satisfactory answer is not obtained, the Soviet government will be forced to resort to other means to defend all the rights of the Soviet Union." On the 17th the Soviets recalled their officials, cut off the railway traffic between China and the USSR, ejected Chinese envoys from the USSR and cut off diplomatic relations with China. In the background Joseph Stalin was initially hesitating to perform any military actions, not wanting to antagonize the Japanese in Manchuria. However the Soviet consul in Tokyo, sent back word that Japan was completely willing to stay out of any conflict if the Soviets limited it to just northern Manchuria. Thus Stalin decided to act. On August 6th, Stalin formed the Special Red Banner Far Eastern Army under the command of General Vasily Blyukher. It was composed of three infantry divisions; the 1st Pacific Infantry Division, the 2nd Amur Infantry Division, and the 35th Trans-Baikal Infantry Division), one cavalry brigade (the 5th Kuban Cavalry Brigade), and the addition of the Buryat Mongolian Independent Cavalry Battalion. The total force was said to be as many as 30,000 with their headquarters located in Khabarovsk. Blyukher also had the support of the Far Eastern Fleet, roughly 14 shallow water heavy gunboats, a minesweeper detachment, an aviation detachment with 14 aircraft, and a marine battalion commanded by Yakov Ozolin. Blyukher had served during the civil war and was a military advisor in China attached to Chiang Kai-SHek's HQ. He had a large hand to play in the northern expedition, and was one of the select Soviets Chiang Kai-Shek intentionally made sure got home safe during the purge. Blyukher would exercises a unusual amount of autonomy with his far east command, based out of Khabarovsk. For the upcoming operation a 5th of the entire Red Army was mobilized to assist. On the other side Zhang Xueliang mobilized as many troops as he could, including many White Russians hiding out in Manchuria. His total strength on paper was 270,000, but only 100,000 would be actively facing the Soviets as the rest were needed to maintain public order and to defend southern Manchuria. The person in charge of the Eastern Line of the Chinese Eastern Railway was the brigade commander of the Jilin Army, Ding Chao, and the western line was the brigade commander of the Heilongjiang Army, Liang Zhongjia, and the chief of staff was Zhang Wenqing. Wang Shuchang led the First Army to guard the eastern line, and Hu Yukun led the Second Army to guard the western line. The Soviet army also had a quality advantage in equipment. In terms of artillery, the Soviet army had about 200 artillery pieces, including more than a dozen heavy artillery pieces, while the Chinese army had only 135 infantry artillery pieces and no heavy artillery. At the same time, the Soviet army also had a quality advantage in machine guns because it was equipped with 294 heavy machine guns and 268 highly mobile light machine guns. The Chinese army was equipped with only 99 heavy machine guns. In terms of air force, the Chinese army had 5 aircraft that were combat effective. On July 26th the Soviets bombarded Manzhouli from three directions along the western end of the Chinese Eastern Railway. Two days later a Soviet infantry regiment, 3 armored vehicles and 4 artillery pieces advanced to Shibali station, cutting the lines to Manzhouli. They then ordered the Chinese military and police to withdraw as they captured Manzhouli. Then on the 29th the began bombarding Dangbi. On August 8th, 100 Soviet troops carrying two artillery pieces and 3 machine guns engaged Chinese forces outside the south gate of Oupu County street, casualties were heavy for both sides. 5 Soviet aircraft circled over Suifenhe City firing 200 rounds and dropping bombs over the Dongshan Army defense post and Sandaodongzi. The next day 40 Soviet soldiers established two checkpoints at Guzhan blocking traffic and they even began kidnapping civilians. That same day 300 Soviet soldiers and two gunboats occupied the Hujiazhao factory. On the 12th, Sanjianfang, Zhongxing and Lijia's Oil Mill were occupied by over 2000 Soviet troops. Meanwhile 80 Soviets amphibiously assaulted Liuhetun using 8 small boats, killing its defenders before returning to the other side. The next day two Soviet gunboats, 300 marines and 2 aircraft attacked Suidong county in Heilongjiang province while another force attacked Oupu county with artillery. On the morning of the 14th both counties fell. In response the Nanjing government dispatched Liu Guang, the chief of the military department to inspect the Northeast front. On the 15th Zhang Xueliang issued mobilization orders against the USSR, seeing his standing front line forces bolstered to 100,000. On the 15th the foreign minister of the Nanjing government, Wang Zhengting reported to Chiang Kai-Shek negotiations were going nowhere, the Soviets were adamant about getting their rights returned over the Chinese Eastern Railways. The next day, Wang Zhenting told reporters that if the Soviets attacked anymore China would declare war. The next day Zhang Xueliang was interviewed by the Chicago Daily News and had this to say. "The Soviet Union disregarded international trust, trampled on the non-war pact, and rashly sent troops to invade our country. We respect the non-war pact and have repeatedly made concessions to show our responsibility for provoking the provocation. If the Russian side continues to advance, we will be willing to be the leader of the war, so we have prepared everything and will do our best to fight to the death."  On the 16th two Soviet infantry companies and one cavalry company attacked Zhalannur from Abagaitu along the border. The two sides fought for 2 hours until the Soviets stormed the Zhalannur station. After another 5 hours of combat the Soviets pulled back over the border. By this point enough was enough. China declared war on August 17th escalating what was an incident around the Chinese Eastern Railway zone into a full blown war.  Blyukher had developed a plan for an offensive consisting of two rapid operations. The first would be against the Chinese naval forces and the second against the ground forces via a large encirclement. After the war was declared on the 17th, the Soviet Army advanced into Manchuria from the western end of the Chinese Eastern Railway. The Red Banner Special Far Eastern Army initially dispatched a total of 6,091 infantrymen and 1,599 artillerymen in front of Manchuria, equipped with 88 artillery pieces of 76.2 mm or above, excluding artillery belonging to infantry regiments, 32 combat aircraft, 3 armored trains, and 9 T-18 light tanks . The army units included: the 35th and 36th Infantry Divisions of the 18th Infantry Army; the 5th Cavalry Brigade; the Buryat Mongolian Cavalry Battalion; an independent tank company equipped with T-18 tanks, the 6th Aviation Detachment, the 25th Aviation Detachment, the 26th Bomber Squadron, the 18th Army Artillery Battalion, the 18th Engineering Battalion, and a Railway Battalion.  The first battle broke out around Manzhouli. Liang Zhongjia, the brigade commander stationed in Manzhouli, reported this to his superiors of the engagement “of the battle situation, the 38th and 43rd regiments under my command fought with a regiment of Soviet infantry and cavalry for 4 hours in the afternoon and are still in a standoff. The Soviet army has more than one division of troops near Abagaitu”. At 10:30 p.m. on the 18th, the Soviets began to attack the positions of the 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the 43rd Regiment of the Northeastern Army in Zhalannur. At 1 p.m. on August 19, the Soviets added about 600 to 700 troops opposite the positions of the 43rd Regiment of Zhalannur. At 5 a.m the Soviets dispatched five aircraft from Abagaitu to Shibali Station. On the 19th, the Soviets captured Suibin County with ease. At 6 a.m. on the 20th, the Soviets used armored trains to transport more than 200 troops to attack the 10th Cavalry Regiment of Liang Zhongjia's troops. After fighting for about an hour, the Soviets retreated. On the 23rd a battle broke out in Mishan and on the 25th 400 Soviet cavalry began building fortifications roughly a kilometer near the Chinese 43rd regiment at Zhalannur. Zhang Xueliang spoke again to the Chinese and foreign press on the 25th stating this. "Foreigners have many misunderstandings about the Eastern Province's actions this time, thinking that it is to take back the Eastern Route and violate the treaty. In fact, we have no intention of violating the 1924 Sino-Russian Agreement or the Agreement with Russia, because China has signed it and has no intention of violating it. China has no intention of taking back the route at all. What it wants is to remove the Russian personnel who are involved in the communist movement. Moreover, in this matter, the Eastern Route is a very small issue. The real point is that the Russians use China as a base for communism, and we have to take measures in self-defense." Between the 28th to the 30th an intense battle broke out at Wangqing.  On the 31st, Soviet gunboats bombarded three garrisons around  Heihe. On September 4th, the Soviet army bombarded the right wing of the 43rd and 38th Regiments stationed in Lannur. At 4 pm on the 9th, a single regiment of the Soviet army, under the cover of artillery, launched a fierce attack on the Chinese army at Manzhouli Station from the Shibali Station, but by 8:30 pm, they pulled back. At 4 pm, 8 Soviet aircraft bombed Suifenhe Station, causing over 50 Chinese casualties and injured a regimental commander. On the night of the 16th, more than 100 Soviet troops attacked the Kukdoboka checkpoint in Lubin County and burned down the checkpoint. On the 18th, the Soviet government announced to the ambassadors of various countries that they had always advocated for a peaceful solution to the issue of the Chinese Eastern Railway, while China's attitude was hypocritical and insincere. It was believed that future negotiations were hopeless, and all previous negotiations mediated by Germany were terminated. From now on, they stated quote “the Soviet Union would not bear any responsibility for any ominous incidents caused on the Sino-Russian border”. With negotiations completely broken down, Blyukher was given the greenlight to launch a fatal blow.  On October 2, more than a thousand Soviet infantryman, supported by aircraft and artillery stormed the positions of the 3rd Battalion of the 38th Regiment in Manzhouli. The two sides fought until the morning of the 3rd. On the 4th Zhang Xueiliang drafted the “national volunteer army organization regulations letter” trying to embolden the population stating "when the foreigners invade the border, the first thing to do is to resist. All citizens or groups who are willing to sacrifice their lives for the country on the battlefield will be volunteers or volunteer soldiers." The new regulations stipulated that volunteers of this new group would be named as the National Volunteer Army. On October the 10th, 30,000 Soviet forces on the Baikal side advanced through the northeastern border of China. At this time, the brigade responsible for defending Liang Zhongjia had been fighting with the Soviet troops for dozens of days. There was no backup and they were in urgent need of help. According to Chinese observations, the Soviets deployed nearly 80,000 troops by land, sea and air on the Sino-Soviet border. Along the eastern front, the Soviets capture in succession Sanjiangkou, Tongjiang and Fujin. Meanwhile at 5am on the 12th the Far Eastern Fleet commanded engaged in a firefight with the Songhua River Defense Fleet, near Sanjiangkou. According to Chinese reconnaissance, the Soviet warships participating in the battle included: the flagship "Sverdlov" a shallow-water heavy gunboat led by Sgassk, the shallow-water heavy gunboat "Sun Yat-sen", the shallow-water heavy gunboat "Red East", the shallow-water heavy gunboat "Lenin", the inland gunboat "Red Flag", and the inland gunboat "Proletariat", with a total of 4 152mm cannons, 26 120mm cannons, 6 85mm anti-aircraft guns, 8 37mm anti-aircraft guns, and more than ten aircraft for support. The Chinese forces were led by Yin Zuogan who commanded six shallow-water gunboats, including the "Lijie" (flagship), "Lisui", "Jiangping", "Jiang'an", and "Jiangtai", and the "Dongyi" armed barge as a towed artillery platform. Except for the "Jiangheng" of 550 tons and the "Liji" of 360 tons, the rest were all below 200 tons, and the entire fleet had 5 120mm guns. In the ensuing battle the Jiangping, Jiang'an, Jiangtai, Lijie, and Dongyi, were sunk, and the Lisui ship was seriously injured and forced to flee back to Fujin.The Chinese side claimed that they damaged two Soviet ships, sunk one, and shot down two fighter planes; but according to Soviet records, five Soviet soldiers were killed and 24 were injured.  At the same time as the naval battle around Sanjiangkou, two Soviet gunboats covered four armed ships, the Labor, Karl Marx, Mark Varyakin, and Pavel Zhuravlev, carrying a battalion of more than 400 people from the 2nd Infantry Division Volochaev Regiment, landing about 5 kilometers east of Tongjiang County and attacking the Chinese military station there. The Northeast Marine Battalion guarding the area and the Meng Zhaolin Battalion of the 9th Army Brigade jointly resisted and repelled the Soviet's initial attack. The Chinese suffered heavy losses, with more than 500 officers and soldiers killed and wounded, and more than 70 people including the Marine Battalion Captain Li Runqing captured.  On the 14th, the Chinese sank 6 tugboats, 2 merchant ships and 2 warships in the waterway 14 kilometers downstream of Fujin, forming a blockade line; and set up solid artillery positions and a 13-kilometer-long bunker line nearby, destroying all bridges on the road from Tongjiang to Fujin. A battle broke out at Tongjiang and according to the the report of Shen Honglie “the Northeast Navy suffered more than 500 casualties (including marines), 4 warships were sunk, 1 was seriously damaged, and the "Haijun" gunboat (45 tons) was captured by the Soviet army and renamed "Pobieda"; 17 officers including the battalion commander Meng Zhaolin and 350 soldiers of the army were killed; the Chinese side announced that 2 Soviet planes were shot down (some sources say 1), 3 Soviet warships were sunk, 4 were damaged, and more than 300 casualties”. On the 18th, the Soviets completely withdrew from the Tongjiang, allowing the two regiments of Lu Yongcai and Zhang Zuochen of the 9th Brigade to recapture it. On the 30th, Admiral Ozolin led some Soviet land forces in a major attack in the Fujian area. He organized the troops under his jurisdiction into two groups. He led the first group personally, who were supported by heavy gunboats Red East, Sun Yat-Sen and gunboats Red Flag, Proletarian, Buryat, minelayer Powerful and the armored boat Bars. Their mission was to annihilate the remnants of the river defense fleet anchored in Fujin. The second group was commanded by Onufryev, the commander of the Soviet 2nd infantry division. His group consisted of the shallow-water heavy gunboat Serdlov, gunboat Pauper and the transport fleets steam carrying the Volochaev Regiment and the 5th Amur regiment who landed at Fujin.  On the other side the Chinese had concentrated two infantry brigades, 3 cavalry regiments and a team of police with the support of the gunboats Jiangheng,  Lisui, Liji and the tugboat Lichuan. At 9 am on the 31st, the 7 Soviet ships suddenly destroyed the river blocking ropes and entered the Fujin River bank, bombarding the Chinese army, as cavalry landed. The Chinese ships "Lisui" and "Lichuan" sank successively, and only the "Jiangheng" managed to participate in the battle, but soon sank after firing only three shots. At 7 pm 21 Soviet ships sailed up the Songhua River, as part of the cavalry landed at Tuziyuan, advancing step by step towards Fujin. At 9 pm 7 Soviet ships approached the Fujin River bank, with roughly 700 infantry, cavalry and artillery soldiers of the 2nd Amur Infantry Division landed. The Chinese army collapsed without a fight, retreating to Huachuan, and by11am, Fujin county was occupied. Chinese sources reported “the Soviet army burned down the civil and military institutions separately and destroyed all the communication institutions. They distributed all the flour from the Jinchang Fire Mill to the poor, and plundered all the weapons, ammunition and military supplies." On the evening of November 1, the Soviet infantry, cavalry and artillery withdrew from the east gate. On the morning of the 2nd, the Soviet ships withdrew one after another. According to Soviet records, nearly 300 Chinese soldiers were killed in this battle, with thousands captured, while the Soviet army only lost 3 people and injured 11 people . The Chinese Songhua River fleet was completely destroyed, and 9 merchant ships were captured. In early November, the weather in the north became freezing cold, leading the rivers to freeze. Soviet warships retreated back to Khabarovsk, and their infantry and cavalry also returned by land. The war on the Eastern Front was basically over.  As for the western front, the main battlefields revolved around Manzhouli and Zhalannur. Since August 1929, conflicts here continued, a lot of back and forth stuff. The soviets would storm the areas and pull out. Yet in November, the war in the west escalated.  The commander of the Soviet Trans-Baikal Group, was Stepan Vostrezov, wielding the 21st, 35th and 36th infantry divisions, the 5th Cavalry Brigade, 331 heavy machine guns, 166 light machine guns, 32 combat aircraft, 3 armored trains, 58 light artillery, 30 heavy artillery, 9 T-18 ultra-light tanks, amongst other tanks. The Chinese side had about 16,000 people. There would be three major battles : the Battle of Zhallanur, the Battle of Manzhouli, and the Battle of Hailar. On November the 16th, the Soviets unleashed a large-scale offensive, tossing  nearly 40,000 troops, 400 artillery pieces, 40 tanks and 30 aircraft against the western front. At 11pm the Soviets crossed over the border. At 3am on the 17th the 5th Kuban Cavalry Brigade set out from Abagaitui, followed by the 35th Infantry Division who crossed the frozen surface of the Argun River, hooking around the rear of the Chinese garrison in Zhalannur along the east bank of the Argun River. At 7am Soviet aircraft began bombing the western front. The Chinese garrison headquarters, tram house, 38th Regiment building, and military police station were all bombed, and the radio station was also damaged. At noon, the Binzhou Railway was cut off 10-12 kilometers east of the city, and Zhalannur was attacked. Supported by 8 T-18 tanks and fighter planes, they attacked Zhalannur several times. On the morning of the 18th, the Soviet 5th Cavalry Brigade launched an attack against the 7,000-man 17th Brigade of the Chinese Army guarding Zhalannur. At 1pm on the 18th the Zhalannur Station and the Coal Mine was occupied by the Soviet army. The Chinese defenders, Brigadier Han Guangdi and Commander Zhang Linyu, were killed in action. More than half of the brigade officers and soldiers were killed and more than a thousand were captured. After capturing Zhalannur the Soviets concentrated their forces against Manzhouli. On the 19th, 7 T-18s supported the 108th Infantry Regiment of the Soviet 36th Division to attack Manzhouli from the east and west. Artillery pounded the city, before it was stormed. The 15th Brigade of the Chinese Army guarding the area was quickly surrounded by the Soviet army. Brigade Commander Liang Zhongjia and Chief of Staff Zhang Wenqing, alongside nearly 250 officers, fled to the Japanese consulate and surrendered to the Soviet army on the 20th. According to Soviet records, in the battles of Zhalannur and Manzhouli, over 1,500 Chinese soldiers were killed and more than 9,000 were captured, while the Soviet side lost 143 people, 665 were wounded and 4 were missing. Additionally 30 Chinese artillery pieces and 2 armored trains were captured by the Soviet army. The Soviets claimed that Chinese troops from Lake Khinkai were attacking Iman, modern day Dalnerechensk. In the name of self-defense, the Soviets began bombing Mishan on November 17 and mobilized  the Soviet Primorsky State Army and the 1st Pacific Rifle Infantry Division. The 1st Pacific Division and the 9th Independent Cavalry Brigade advanced towards Mishan, 40 kilometers from the border. Soviet records showed that during this battle the Chinese army suffered more than 1,500 casualties and 135 prisoners. The Soviets seized 6 machine guns, 6 mortars, 500 horses, 6 mortars, 200 horses and a large number of confidential documents. On November 23rd, 12 Soviet aircraft bombed Hailar, before capturing the city the next day.  By late November the Chinese had suffered something in the ballpark of 10,000 casualties along various fronts and an enormous amount of their equipment was taken by the Soviets. The Chinese officially reported 2000 deaths, 1000 wounded with more than 8000 captured. The Soviets reported 812 deaths, 665 wounded with under 100 missing. The Japanese had actually been quite the thorn for the Chinese during the war. They had intentionally barred Chinese forces from advancing north through their South Manchurian Railway zone, a large hindrance. Likewise the Kwantung army stationed in Liaoning were mobilizing, giving the impression they would exploit the situation at any moment.  In the face of quite a catastrophic and clear defeat, Nanjing's ministry of foreign affairs tossed a cease fire demand asking for foreign mediation. By December 3rd, Britain, France and the US asked both sides to stop the war so they could mediate a peace. The USSR rejected the participation of a third nation and suggested they could negotiate with China mono e mono. Zhang Xueliang accepted the proposal, dispatching Cai Yunsheng quickly to Shuangchengzi who signed an armistice with the Soviet representative Smanovsky. On the 16th real negotiations began and on the 22nd a draft agreement was signed. The draft stipulated both nations would re-cooperate over the Chinese Eastern Railway and that the Red Army would pull out of Manchuria as soon as both sides exchanged prisoners and officials. Thus the entire incident was resolved after humiliating China. While this all seemed completely needless, perhaps not significant, don't forget, the Japanese were watching it all happen in real time, taking notes, because they had their own ideas about Manchuria.  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. And so the Soviets and brand new Nationalist Republic of China went to war over, honestly a petty squabble involving railway rights and earnings. It was a drop in the bucket for such a war torn nation and only further embarrassed it on the world stage. Yet the Soviets might not be the foreign nation China should be looking out for.