Podcasts about soviet

Today, we are exploring a topic that doesn't get talked about much — the British tanks that ended up serving with the Red Army during the Second World War. We often think about the Soviet Union producing huge numbers of its own tanks like the T-34, but in the early years of the war—and even before it—the Soviets were looking abroad for armoured vehicles to strengthen their forces. Britain, with its long history of tank development stretching back to the First World War, was one of the countries they turned to. Joining me is Peter Samsonov, who's spent a lot of time researching Soviet armoured warfare and is the author of 'British Tanks of the Red Army'.   patreon.com/ww2podcast  

Battle has begun. In the north the Germans advance. In the south, there's the battle before the battle and Gen. Hoth had decided to change the attack plan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jack Barsky tells the real-life spy story of how he came to America as a Soviet sleeper agent for the KGB, but started enjoying his new life in America so much he dangerously chose to leave his old life behind.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jack Barsky tells the real-life spy story of how he came to America as a Soviet sleeper agent for the KGB, but started enjoying his new life in America so much he dangerously chose to leave his old life behind.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sergey Radchenko is a Soviet-born British Russian historian. He is the Wilson E. Schmidt Distinguished Professor at the Henry A. Kissinger Centre for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and visiting professor at Cardiff University. He is an historian of the Cold War, mainly known for his work on Sino-Soviet relations and Soviet foreign policy. He also works on Russian and Chinese foreign and security policies, and is a frequent contributor to Foreign Affairs, The New York Times, The Spectator and other outlets.----------Books:Two suns in the heavens: the Sino-Soviet struggle for supremacy, 1962-1967 (2009)The atomic bomb and the origins of the Cold War (2008)The end of the Cold War and the Third World: new perspectives on regional conflict (2011)Unwanted Visionaries: The Soviet Failure in Asia at the End of the Cold War (2014)To Run the World: The Kremlin's Cold War Bid for Global Power (2024)----------Links:https://www.linkedin.com/in/sergey-radchenko-4a4b4296/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Radchenko https://sais.jhu.edu/kissinger/people/radchenko https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/about/people/sergey-radchenko https://www.spectator.co.uk/writer/sergey-radchenko/ https://profradchenko.substack.com/ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/authors/sergey-radchenko https://www.theguardian.com/profile/sergey-radchenko ----------Your support is massively appreciated! SILICON CURTAIN LIVE EVENTS - FUNDRAISER CAMPAIGN Events in 2025 - Advocacy for a Ukrainian victory with Silicon CurtainNEXT EVENTS - LVIV, KYIV AND ODESA THIS MAY AND JUNE.https://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 a minimum of 12 events in 2025, and potentially many more. 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.

Support our independent journalism by joining here. The greatest rivalries of the 1980s! This week, we have a commissioned episode from Club Gym Nerd member Kimo, who asked for an episode all about the 1980s rivalries between the Romanians and the Soviets, both team and individually. We are oh so happy to oblige! Setting the scene A history of Soviet dominance Romania's 1976 emergence The 1977 Europeans Romanian WALKOUT! The first great Romanian/Soviet rivalry—Nadia vs. Nellie and how it may or may not have influenced the future of gymnastics Romania wins in 1979, where Nadia saves the day with one hand. The Rivalry The 1980 Olympics of crazy judging Nadia vs. Davydova and the case of the 30-minute delay Nadia vs. Nellie and the case of the “computer malfunction” Mukhina's paralysis and the race for innovative difficulty 1981 Worlds The silliest scores of 1981 (oh, it's 9.800 for this) The case of the Szabo/Agache impersonation of 1981 Romania ends up 4th. That's right 4th. 1983 Worlds Innovation from an all-star Soviet team—YURCHENKO vaults, the SHISHOVA Just fangirling about Mostepanova for a while More fun with bonkers scoring 1984 boycott gives us an opportunity to talk about China 1985 Worlds Soviet Union casually adds Omelianchik and Shushunova to its already stellar 1983 team The Soviets were so deep that Shushunova placed FIFTH on her own team in qualification The evolution of Romanian floor to be less “chicken dance” and whether it contributed to what happened next 1987 and THE TIDE TURNS Silivas wins the European AA title in Moscow, and the Soviets (gasp) fall Romania gets its first world team title in 8 years How the addition of Aurelia Dobre changed the game for Romania Pro-Soviet bias in skill naming Dobre vs. Shushunova vs. Silivas vs. Baitova vs. Omelianchik. This was no two-way rivalry The 1988 Olympics and how timing is everything Thanks to our sponsor, Huel. Get Huel today with this exclusive offer for New Customers of 15% OFF + a FREE Gift with code GymCastic at https://huel.com/GymCastic (Minimum $75 purchase). UP NEXT Behind The Scenes: at noon Pacific on Friday 3:00pm Eastern/7:00pm GMT OUT NOW IN US & EUROPE The Balance: My Years Coaching Simone Biles by Aimee Boorman with Fact Checker is topping the sport charts - SUCK IT SPORTS BALLS! Get your copy now. And if you loved reading (or listening) to the book, please leave a review. PARIS FX FINAL : LIVE SHOW with the ROMANIAN HEAD COACHES Jessica and Spencer were joined by former professional musical theater boys turned super choreo-coaching duo, Daymon Jones and Patrick Kiens to discuss Celine van Gerner's iconic Cats makeup, the Paris Olympic FX final from their perspective as Romanian team head coaches, choreographing in over 15 countries combined and being the new coaches at WCC.  Replay tickets available for a limited time. BONUS CONTENT  Join Club Gym Nerd (or give it as a gift!) for access to weekly Behind the Scenes episodes. Club Gym Nerd members can watch the podcast being recorded and get access to all of our exclusive extended interviews, Behind The Scenes and College & Cocktails. MERCH GymCastic Store: clothing and gifts to let your gym nerd flag fly and even “tapestries” (banners, the perfect to display in an arena) to support your favorite gymnast! Baseball hats available now in the GymCastic store RELATED  The Karolyi Secret Police Files Olympic Gymnast Claims Karolyi Beat Her KRCA 2008 Dateline: Silent No More. Bela Karolyi "probably over 50 years ago in Romania" when asked if he ever hit a gymnast. Heavy Medals A seven-part story about the Karolyis and the steep price of gold. Firsts, Named Skills, and Innovators in Women's Artistic Gymnastics Nadia and the Secret Police: Interview part one and two Nadia Comaneci and the Secret Police book by Stejarel Olaru Olympic coach John Geddert criminal charges and death Doug Boger: OC Register: Doug Boger banned Story on Colorado resident, Doug Boger: “Gymnasts Accuse Colorado Coach Of Sex Abuse, Torture” GymCastic episode Preventing Abuse in Gymnastics Episode where we predict the future: Biggest Olympic Judging Scandals  344: Shushunova vs. Silivas 1988 (Commissioned) 342: A Quitter's Try – The CNN Parkettes Documentary (Commissioned) 341: The Call Is Coming from Inside the House 340: USAG and The Case of the Missing Documents 327: 1993 NCAA Nationals (Commissioned) 325: Olympics of Difference Makers (Commissioned) 313: Best Floor Routines EVAH! (Commissioned) 312: 4th Is the New 1st (Commissioned) 309: Perfect Form – The O'Beirne Code (Commissioned) 308: 2004 Olympic All-Around Final (Commissioned) 306: Gymnastics Fails (Commissioned) 304: The GymCastic Olympics (Commissioned) 281: Myths, Legends, and Unexpected Moments PART 2 (Commissioned) 279: A Diva Is Magical: The Svetlana Khorkina Episode (Commissioned) 278: 2000 Sydney All-Around Final (Commissioned) 262: 1996 Olympic Event Finals (Commissioned) 258: The Fluff Cast (Commissioned) 256: 1996 Olympic All-Around Final (Commissioned) 255: 1996 Olympic Team Final (Commissioned) 252: Myths, Legends and Unexpected Moments in Gymnastics History (Commissioned) 228: Leotards (Commissioned) 225: 1992 Olympics Recap with Wendy Bruce (Commissioned) 185: 2008 Olympic All-Around Finals (Commissioned) Find all our recent episodes here NEWSLETTERS Sign up for all three GymCastic newsletters  RECENT  Behind The Scenes: Calzones Confessions Demand More Behind The Scenes: Pottery Wheel Massacre RESOURCES Spencer's essential website The Balance Beam Situation  Gymnastics History and Code of Points Archive from Uncle Tim RESISTANCE  Submitted by our listeners. ACTION Indivisible Practical ideas about what you can actually do in this moment, check it out: indivisi.org/muskorus 5Calls App will call your Congresspeople by issue with a script to guide you Make 2 to your Congressional rep (local and DC office). 2 each to your US Senators (local and state offices) State your name and zip code or district Be concise with your question or demand (i.e. What specific steps is Senator X taking to stop XYZ) Wait for answer Ask for action items -  tell them what you want them to do (i.e. draft articles of impeachment immediately, I want to see you holding a press conference in front of...etc.) ResistBot Turns your texts into faxes, postal mail, or emails to your representatives in minutes ACLU Mobile Justice App Allows you to record encounters with public officials while streaming to your closest contacts and your local ACLU; REPORT any abuse by authorities to the ACLU and its networks. LAWSUITS Donate to organizations suing the administration for illegal actions ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, Northwest Immigration Law Project STAY INFORMED Suggested podcasts:  Amicus, Daily Beans, Pod Save America, Strict Scrutiny Immigrant Rights Know Your Rights Red Cards, We Have Rights Video, Your Rights on trains and buses video  

On today's episode we welcome architect and researcher Levan Asabashvili to discuss the emergence and development of public housing in the Georgian SSR and what happened to Georgia's housing stock after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We also explore how Soviet-wide architectural trends in different periods (early Soviet, Stalinist, post-World War 2) manifested in the Georgian SSR and how architecture aligned with ideology, economics and nationhood, with special attention to housing in the Georgian case. We also discuss the role housing played in the emergence of the Soviet middle classes in the late Soviet period and the implications this had for the Soviet Union's collapse. Throughout the discussion, references are made to images of buildings, all of which can be found here:https://georgiaphotophiles.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/tbilisi-public-architecture-timeline/Levan Asabashvili is an architect and researcher based in Tbilisi. He studied architecture at the Tbilisi State Academy of Arts and later at Delft University of Technology. Levan is a co-founder of Urban Reactor, a collective focused on exploring the built environment, and has been involved in establishing the Georgian branch of do.co.mo.mo, an international organization dedicated to documenting and preserving modernist architecture. He also works with Architecture Workshop on design projects and is currently pursuing a PhD at Georgian Technical University, where his research focuses on Soviet architecture and the social, political, and economic factors that have shaped architectural movements.Read Levan's article "AT THE ROOTS OF POST-SOVIET ARCHITECTURE" here: https://danarti.org/en/article/at-the-roots-of-post-soviet-architecture---levan-asabashvili/10

If you have thought about entering the wine trade but really don't think you would be much of wine winemaker...but you really feel like you are going to love it. It actually took me many years to "love" it but hear this story. Armen is getting ready to quite his day job... head down and make it work. And you  know, it is working. Armen Ghazikhanian didn't so much dive into the wine business as wander in with curiosity, a keen palate, and a spreadsheet in his back pocket. You'll come away from this episode with more than just a newfound respect for Armenian wine; you'll discover how a career in finance can lead to the art of curating bottles that carry centuries of culture and a whisper of volcanic terroir. Armen reveals how his passion-driven side gig, Cork and Bottle, was forged as much by personal connections and boots on the ground in remote Armenian villages as by business school savviness—only to discover that the wine industry plays by its own rules entirely. Along the way, you'll learn about the surprising renaissance of Armenian winemaking after the Soviet era, why indigenous grape varieties like areni and voskehat are turning the heads of wine judges and sommeliers, and what happens when you take a risk importing unknown bottles to the US, hoping they don't just satisfy your friends but spark conversation in wine shops and restaurants across California. Through anecdotes of smuggling bottles, weathering the red tape of international logistics, and winning unexpected gold at wine competitions, Armen shares what it means to balance romanticism and reality in the wine trade. Hosts and listeners alike will come away with a deeper appreciation for how wine isn't just a drink, but a powerful carrier of memory, tradition, and entrepreneurial risk—all told with Armen's self-effacing humor and Paul's insider understanding of the business. And if you've ever wondered whether a grape from the South Caucasus can go toe-to-toe with a California cab, this episode might just send you to the nearest shop asking for a bottle of “Areni”—even if you're not quite sure how to pronounce it.   #WineTalksPodcast #ArmenianWine #CorkAndBottle #WineImporter #WineCulture #PassionToProfession #IndigenousGrapes #WineBusiness

Soviet soldiers turned to stone by a UFO? This declassified CIA document says so. In this episode, we unpack that eerie tale—and share some of the weirdest secrets ever found in CIA files. Need more WMMM in your life? Join the Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/c/witchesmagicmurdermystery Want WMMM Merch? Check out the podcast store: https://witches-magic-murder-mystery-podcast-store.myshopify.com   Our Youtube Channel has longer versions of our episodes, with less editing and more outtakes: https://www.youtube.com/c/WitchesMagicMurderMysteryPodcast Sources:   cia.gov/readingroom/collection/ufos-fact-or-fiction  CIA-RDP96-00792R000700530004-8 cia.gov/stories/story/take-a-peek-into-our-x-files en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Kitty en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Identification_Program All Witches, Magic, Murder, & Mystery episodes are a mix of Kara and Megan's personal thoughts and opinions in response to the information that is publicly available at the time of recording, as well as, in some cases, personal accounts provided by listeners. In regard to these self-reported personal accounts, there can be no assurance that the information provided is 100% accurate.  If you love the Trash Witch art (see our Patreon or the Podcast store), Tiffini Scherbing of Scherbing Arts created her. Like her Scherbing Arts page on Facebook, or follow her on instagram at @scherbingarts76! She can create anything you need.  TikTok: @wmmmpodcast Instagram: @witchesmagicmurdermystery Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/465405701297488/ Email all your weird stories: witchesmagicmurdermystery@gmail.com Get to know us better:                  Kara: @many_adventures_of_kara on Instagram              Megan: @meganmakesjokes on TikTok, @megan_whitmer on Instagram  WMMM Podcast P.O. Box 910674 Lexington, KY 40591 Music credit: Chloe's Lullaby (podcast theme) by Robert Austin. Available on Spotify, Google Play, YouTube, Bandcamp, and Patreon! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, I speak with Izabella Tabarovsky about the deep historical roots of modern anti-Zionism, tracing its origins in medieval Christian antisemitism and Soviet ideology. We explore how these ancient and modern narratives intertwine and shape the contemporary discourse around Jews, Israel, and Zionism. Join us for a conversation that sheds light on the forgotten past and the ideological forces at play today.For our first conversation see here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5i1c...‪@izabellatabarovsky3215‬ Facebook:   / daniel.levine.31  Instagram:   / rabbidaniellevine  #Zionism #hillel #Judaism

Today is a public holiday here in the UK, and so we're releasing a special episode on one of the great taboo subjects in the history of warfare: that of role of gender and sexual violence. Firstly, Adelie speaks with Sofi Oksanen, who just published the viral essay 'Same River, Twice, Putin's War on Women'. She discusses how historic attitudes to gender in Russia impacted post-Soviet history. The second interview is with Tatyana Tymoshenta, a therapist who works with survivors of rape in Ukraine. Listener discretion is especially advised for this episode.Contributors:Adélie Pojzman-Pontay (Reporter and Producer). @adeliepjz on X.With thanks to Sofi Oksanen, @SofiOksanen on X. SIGN UP TO THE NEW ‘UKRAINE: THE LATEST' WEEKLY NEWSLETTER:https://secure.telegraph.co.uk/customer/secure/newsletter/ukraine/ Each week, Dom Nicholls and Francis Dearnley answer your questions, provide recommended reading, and give exclusive analysis and behind-the-scenes insights – plus maps of the frontlines and diagrams of weapons to complement our daily reporting. It's free for everyone, including non-subscribers.Content Referenced:Conference: Thought and Truth under Pressurehttps://www.svenskaakademien.se/en/events/thought-and-truth-under-pressureSame River, Twice: Putin's War on Womenhttps://harpercollins.co.uk/products/same-river-twice-putins-war-on-women-sofi-oksanen?variant=53507032514939An online psychotherapy support platform for survivors of conflict-related violence Aurora operates in Ukraine, UNFPAhttps://ukraine.unfpa.org/en/aurora_engNOW AVAILABLE IN NEW LANGUAGES:The Telegraph has launched translated versions of Ukraine: The Latest in Ukrainian and Russian, making its reporting accessible to audiences on both sides of the battle lines and across the wider region, including Central Asia and the Caucasus. Just search Україна: Останні Новини (Ukr) and Украина: Последние Новости (Ru) on your on your preferred podcast app to find them.Listen here: https://linktr.ee/ukrainethelatestSubscribe: telegraph.co.uk/ukrainethelatestEmail: ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

  Last time we spoke about the Xi'an Incident. In December 1936, tensions in China erupted as Nationalist General Chiang Kai-shek faced a revolt led by his commanders, Zhang Xueliang and Yang Hucheng. Disillusioned by Chiang's focus on battling communists instead of the Japanese invaders, the generals swiftly captured him in a coup. Confined in Xi'an, Chiang initially resisted their demands for a united front against Japan but eventually engaged in negotiation with Zhang and the Chinese Communist Party. As public sentiment shifted against him, Chiang's predicament led to urgent discussions, culminating in an unexpected alliance with the communists. This pact aimed to consolidate Chinese resistance against Japanese aggression, marking a critical turning point in the Second Sino-Japanese War. By December 26, Chiang was released, and this uneasy collaboration set the stage for a more unified front against a common enemy, though underlying tensions remained between the factions.   #152 China Prepares for War 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. Before we jump into the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, which I honestly have no idea how long will take us, I thought it would be a good idea to dedicate two episodes to how both China and Japan prepared themselves for war.  Going all the way back to the 1910s, Chinese intellectuals began to view an outright conflict between Japan and China was inevitable. In the discussions about China's strategic options, Jiang Fangzhen pioneered a strategy of protracted warfare, a concept that would later shape China's approach during the Sino-Japanese War. Having studied in Japan during his youth, Jiang developed a keen understanding of the Japanese government and military. As early as 1917, he predicted that China and Japan would become embroiled in a long-term conflict, with the battleground likely to be west of the Peiping–Wuhan and Guangzhou–Wuhan railways. In his work titled "Guofang Lun" or “On National Defense”, Jiang reiterated the importance of protracted warfare as a means to thwart Japan's aspirations for a swift victory. He argued that China should leverage its vast population and extensive territory to extend the conflict, gradually wearing down Japanese strength and turning the situation to its advantage. Jiang recommended that China not focus on defending its coastal regions but instead confront the enemy west of the Peking–Wuhan Railway.   Chiang Kai-shek would eventually come to share Jiang's belief that “the longer the war drags on, the more advantageous it will be for China.” Despite significant public criticism, both the Nationalist government and General Zhang Xueliang, decided against military resistance when Japan invaded Manchuria in September 1931 and attacked Shanghai in 1932. Chiang was particularly hesitant to engage Japan directly, as he was also dealing with a Communist insurgency in central China. He feared that Chinese forces would suffer quick defeat, predicting that Japan would capture key coastal areas and critical infrastructure within just three days, crippling China by dismantling its military and economic lifelines. Following the invasion of North China Chiang was forced to adopt a firmer stance. The Nationalist government proposed a dual strategy of pursuing peace and security while simultaneously preparing for war. If peace proved impossible, China would mobilize its resources for ultimate victory through prolonged conflict. This approach was formalized in the National Defense Plan, which China adopted by prioritizing protracted warfare as its core strategy. After the Sino-Japanese clash in Shanghai on January 28, 1932, the Military Affairs Commission devised a plan that divided China into four defense areas along with a preparation area. While some troops were assigned local security, commanders were directed to concentrate their remaining forces for potential confrontations with Japan. That year, the Military Affairs Commission issued General Defense Guidelines that outlined two strategic responses to a potential Japanese invasion. The first, conservative approach focused on maintaining key positions and utilizing protracted warfare to impede the enemy. The second strategy advocated for decisive battles in key regions to thwart Japan's ambitions and protect China's territorial integrity, prioritizing disengagement from Japanese forces along the Yangtze River and coastline. In August 1935, German military adviser General Alexander von Falkenhausen provided recommendations to Chiang Kai-shek based on his predictions of Japanese advance routes into China. He identified three main routes: one from northern Hebei to Zhengzhou, the second from Shandong toward Xuzhou, and the third crossing the Yangtze River to Nanjing and onwards to Wuhan. He suggested treating the Yangtze River as the primary combat zone and highlighted Sichuan as a possible retreat area. Taking all of this into consideration. in 1936, a draft of a new National Defense Plan divided the country into four zones: a war zone, a defense zone, an internal security zone, and a preparation area. The war zone encompassed ten provinces and established strategies for retreating to predetermined defensive positions when necessary, with Sichuan designated as the main base for the war. In January 1937, the Chinese General Staff Department introduced its annual War Plan, outlining three possible military conflict regions between China and Japan. It proposed two main strategies: Proposal A emphasized sustained combat and retreat to fortified positions if the situation became unfavorable, aiming to eventually go on the offensive against Japan. Proposal B focused on repelling Japanese invasions along the coast and from the north, prioritizing counter offensives against Japanese units stationed near key locations. To prepare, the NRA completed several critical projects outlined in its plans, establishing military supply depots in Nanjing, Bengbu, Xinyang, Huayin, Nanchang, and Wuchang to manage logistics for supplies across various strategic railways. These depots were equipped to sustain the military, with ample ammunition and provisions, including 60 million rounds of small-arms ammunition and food for hundreds of thousands. Despite these preparations, not all projects were completed by the time war broke out in July 1937. In contrast to the Japanese military's tactics, Chinese forces prioritized defensive strategies. For example, at the Mount Lushan Military Officer Training Camp in July 1934, Chiang Kai-shek outlined four possible approaches against Japan, favoring a defense-as-offense strategy. Other options included building fortifications, tenaciously defending key positions, and employing guerrilla warfare through irregular forces to constrain enemy advances. Chiang stressed the importance of national mobilization for the war effort.  There was a significant disparity in equipment between the Japanese and Chinese armies. To give you an idea, each Japanese division included a mechanized group featuring thirty-nine light military vehicles and 21 light armored cars, supplemented by 6,000–7,000 horses, 200–300 automobiles, and specialized troops such as poison gas teams. In contrast, Nationalist divisions lacked any of these capabilities, a typical nationalist division theoretically had an armored regiment, but this unit was equipped with fewer than 72 armored vehicles. Another major weakness of the Nationalist forces was their insufficient artillery. In 1936, a division was officially assigned one artillery battalion, which was divided into three batteries totaling twelve guns. It also included a mechanized cannon company with four direct-fire weapons. By comparison, a Japanese division boasted four infantry regiments and one mountain artillery or field artillery regiment, with each artillery regiment comprising three field artillery battalions and one howitzer battalion. The infantry regiment itself included a mountain artillery section with four mountain guns, while the infantry battalion had one Type 70 mountain gun section with two guns. In total, a Japanese division possessed sixty-four artillery pieces of various calibers, four times the number of a Chinese division and of significantly higher quality. In reality, in 1936, twelve of the twenty elite Chinese “reformed divisions” still lacked artillery battalions. The ordnance available in the “reformed divisions” mostly consisted of the outdated Type 60 mountain gun. Nationwide, very few of the 200 divisions were equipped with any artillery, and those that did often used obsolete field artillery pieces or mountain artillery provided to local forces. Some units even relied on trench mortars as a makeshift solution. The artillery weapons came from various countries, but they frequently lacked necessary observation and signal components, and were often low on ammunition. The majority of mountain guns and field artillery were of the Type 75, which, while capable of providing fire support, had limited range and inflicted minimal damage. To give you an idea of the striking inadequacy of the Chinese artillery, during the Shanghai fighting in 1937, the mountain artillery of the Guangxi 21st Army Group could only reach targets within 1,200 yards, while Japanese field artillery had an effective range of 8,000 yards. Chinese-made mountain artillery suffered due to inferior steel-making technology; the gun shields were constructed from low-quality steel, and the barrels often overheated after firing just a few rounds, increasing the risk of explosions. Additionally, the equipment of local forces varied greatly in quality. In fact, some local units had superior equipment compared to Nationalist units. For example, before the Sino-Japanese War, troops from Yunnan were equipped with French antitank guns and heavy machine guns, which were better than the German water-cooled machine guns used by the Nationalist forces. However, the majority of local troops relied on inferior equipment; the 122nd Division under Wang Mingzhang from Sichuan, noted for its brave defense of Tengxian County during the Xuzhou Battle, was armed with locally produced light and heavy machine guns that frequently malfunctioned, and their Type 79 rifles, also made in Sichuan, were often outdated, with some dating back to the Qing Dynasty. These weapons had limited range and sometimes malfunctioned after fewer than one hundred rounds. Now before the war, both Nationalist and local forces acquired weaponry from diverse foreign and domestic sources. Even domestically produced weapons lacked standardization, with those made in Hanyang and Manchuria differing in design and specifications. Arms manufactured in Germany, France, Russia, Japan, and Italy were similarly inconsistent. Consequently, even within a single unit, the lack of uniformity created significant logistical challenges, undermining combat effectiveness, particularly in the early stages of the war. Despite Nationalist ordnance factories producing over three million rounds of small-arms ammunition daily, the incompatibility of ammunition and weapons diminished the usable quantity of ammunition. Chinese communications infrastructure was inadequate. In the Nationalist army, signal units were integrated into engineering units, leading to low-quality radio communications. In emergencies, telegrams could remain undelivered for days, and orders often had to be dispatched via postal services. By 1937, the entire country boasted only 3,000 military vehicles, necessitating heavy reliance on horses and mules for transport. To effectively equip twenty Nationalist divisions, 10,647 horses and 20,688 mules were needed, but by the end of 1935, only 6,206 horses and 4,351 mules were available. A statistic from 1936 indicated a 5 percent mortality rate among military horses, with some units experiencing a rate as high as 10 percent. The distribution of weaponry led to disputes during army reorganization efforts following the Northern Expedition. Although Chiang Kai-shek's forces were part of the regular army, the quality of their equipment varied significantly. Domestic production of weapons was limited, and imports could not close the gap. Priority was given to small arms; through army reorganization, Chiang aimed to diminish the influence of forces less loyal to him. Nationalist army staff officers observed that troops loyal to Chiang received the best weapons. Northwest and Northeast forces, having cultivated good relations with the KMT, were similarly better equipped, while Shanxi troops received inferior supplies. Troops associated with the Guangxi Clique were given even poorer quality weapons due to their leaders' stronger political ambitions. Troops regarded as “bandit forces,” such as those led by Shi Yousan, Li Hongchang, and Sun Dianying, were naturally assigned the least effective weaponry. This unequal distribution of arms increased some local forces' inclination to align with the KMT while alienating others, which inadvertently led to additional turmoil in the aftermath of the Northern Expedition. Logistical accounting within the Nationalist military was severely lacking. Military expenditures accounted for a significant portion of government spending, roughly 65.48 % in 1937, with personnel costs being the largest component. However, military units prioritized boosting their own resources over accurate accounting. Surpluses were not returned but rather utilized to reward military officers and soldiers for merits in battle, care for the wounded, or to create a reserve. Conversely, if deficits arose, troops would resort to “living off vacancies,” a practice in which they would fail to report desertions promptly and would falsely claim new soldiers had arrived. Military leaders typically appointed their most trusted subordinates to serve as accountants and logistic officers. As the war commenced, these issues became readily apparent. During the Battle of Shanghai in 1937, frontline soldiers sometimes went days without food and went months without pay. Wounded soldiers and civilians had to search tirelessly for medical treatment, and when main forces relocated, they often abandoned grain, ammunition, weapons, and petroleum along the way. General Chen Cheng, the commander in chief during the Battle of Shanghai, noted, “This phenomenon clearly revealed our inability to supply frontline troops, indicating that China remains a backward country with poor management.” Many logistical shortcomings severely impacted troop morale and combat effectiveness. In a 1933 speech, Chiang Kai-shek acknowledged that poor food, inadequate clothing, and ineffective logistics contributed to widespread desertion. Soldiers were further demoralized by reduced or embezzled salaries. A lack of professional medical staff and equipment hampered healthcare efforts, leading to high disease and mortality rates. According to official statistics from 1936, approximately 10 percent of soldiers fell ill annually, with a mortality rate as high as 5 percent. Japanese military authorities reported that one in three wounded Japanese soldiers died, while a Dutch military officer present during the early stages of the Sino-Japanese War observed that one in every two wounded Nationalist soldiers perished. Due to inadequate equipment and limited transport options, Nationalist forces were compelled to recruit farmers and rent vehicles, as they lacked essential facilities such as tents. This reliance on local resources inevitably led to frequent conflicts between military personnel and civilians. China is clearly a vast nation with an extensive coastline, requiring the construction of several significant fortresses during the modern era. These included Wusong, Jiangyin, Zhenjiang, Jiangning, and Wuhan along the Yangtze River, as well as Zhenhai, Humen, and Changzhou along the seacoast. Except for the Wuhan fortress, built in 1929-1930, all other fortifications were established during the late Qing Dynasty and featured uncovered cannon batteries. These fortresses suffered from inadequate maintenance, and many of their components had become outdated and irreplaceable, rendering them militarily negligible. Following the January 1932 Shanghai Incident, the Japanese military destroyed the Wusong forts, leaving the entrance to the Yangtze River completely unfortified. Consequently, there were no defenses along the coastline from Jiangsu to Shandong, allowing the Japanese to land freely. In December 1932, the Military Affairs Commission established a fortress group tasked with constructing fortresses and defensive installations, seeking assistance from German military advisers. After the North China Incident in 1935, the Nationalist government accelerated the construction of defensive structures in line with national war planning, focusing particularly on Nanjing. The Nationalists prioritized building fortifications along the seacoast and the Yellow River, followed by key regions north of the Yellow River. The government also ordered a significant quantity of heavy artillery from Germany. This included several dozen pieces of flat-fire antiaircraft and dual-purpose heavy artillery, which were installed at fortifications in Jiangyin, Zhenjiang, Nanjing, and Wuhan. By the summer of 1937, the construction of nine fortified positions was complete: Nanjing, Zhenjiang, Jiangyin, Ningbo, Humen, Mawei, Xiamen , Nantong, and Lianyungang. In total, China had established 41 forts and equipped them with 273 fortress cannons. Some defensive installations were poorly managed, with many units assigned to their perimeters lacking training and access to proper maps. The barbette positions in the fortresses were not well concealed and could hardly store sufficient ammunition. Troops stationed at these fortresses received little training. Despite these shortcomings, the fortresses and fortifications were not entirely ineffective. They bolstered Chinese positions along the defense line stretching from Cangxian County to Baoding and from Dexian County to Shijiazhuang, as well as in southern Shandong.  Before the war, China's political and economic center was situated along the seacoast and the Yangtze River. As Japanese influence expanded, the Nationalist government was compelled to establish bases in China's inner regions, very similar to how the USSR pulled back its industry further west after Operation barbarossa.The Japanese attack on Shanghai in 1932 prompted the Nationalists to relocate their capital to Luoyang. On March 5, during the Second Plenary Session of the KMT's Fourth Congress, the Western Capital Preparation Committee was formed to plan for the potential relocation of all governmental bodies to Xi'an in the event of full-scale war. In February 1933, the Central Political Conference approved the Northwest Development Bill, and in February 1934, the National Economic Commission set up a northwestern branch to oversee development projects in the region. On October 18, 1934, Chiang Kai-shek traveled to Lanzhou, recording in his diary that “Northwest China has abundant resources. Japan and Russia are poised to bully us. Yet, if we strengthen ourselves and develop northwest China to the fullest extent, we can turn it into a base for China's revival.” Interestingly, it was Sichuan, rather than the northwest, that became China's rear base during the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. In October 1934, the Communist army evacuated its Soviet base in southern China, initiating the Long March that would ultimately end in the northwest. By this time, Chiang Kai-shek had decided to designate Sichuan as the last stronghold for China. In January 1935, the Nanchang Field Headquarters of the Military Affairs Commission, responsible for combatting the Communists and serving as the supreme military and political authority over most provinces along the Yangtze River and central China, dispatched a special advisory group to Chongqing. Following this, the Nationalist army advanced into Sichuan. On February 10, the Nationalists appointed a new provincial government in Sichuan, effectively ending the province's long-standing regionalism. On March 2, Chiang traveled to Chongqing, where he delivered a speech underscoring that “Sichuan should serve as the base for China's revival.” He stated that he was in Sichuan to oversee efforts against the Communist army and to unify the provincial administration.  After the Xinhai revolution, the Republic of China was still suing the Qing Dynasty's conscription system. However, once in power, the Nationalist government sought to establish a national military service program. In 1933, it enacted a military service law, which began implementation in 1936. This law categorized military service into two branches: service in the Nationalist army and in territorial citizen army units. Men aged eighteen to forty-five were expected to serve in the territorial units if they did not enlist in the Nationalist army. The territorial service was structured into three phases: active service lasting two to three years, first reserves for six years, and second reserves until the age of forty-five. The Ministry of Military Affairs divided China into sixty divisional conscription headquarters, initially establishing these headquarters in the six provinces of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, and Hubei. By December 1936, approximately 50,000 new soldiers had been drafted. The military service law disproportionately favored the middle and upper classes. Government personnel were exempt from enlistment, allowing privileged families to register their children with government agencies. Similarly, students in middle and higher education were excused from service, while youth from poorer backgrounds often felt compelled to enlist due to financial constraints that limited their educational opportunities. Village and town leaders were responsible for executing the recruitment process and frequently conspired with army recruiters. Recruitment principles often favored wealthier families, with guidelines stating that one son should be drafted for every three sons, two for five sons, but no drafts if there was only one son. Wealthy families could secure exemptions for all their male children, while poor families might see their only son conscripted if they were unable to provide the requisite bribe. Town and village heads wielded significant power in recruitment. This new recruitment system also created numerous money-making opportunities. Military personnel assigned to escort draftees to their units would often allow draftees to escape for a fee. Additionally, draftees could monetize their service by agreeing to serve as substitutes for others. For some, being drafted became an occupation. For example, in 1936, 600 individuals were drafted in the Wuhu area of Anhui province, and accounts from regional administrators indicated that every draftee had either been traded, replaced, or seized. Beginning in 1929, the Nationalist government also instituted military training for high school students and older individuals. Students were required to participate in one theoretical class and one practical class each week, totaling three hours. Starting in 1934, students had to complete a three-month military training program before graduating. Graduates of military academies were employed as military instructors. By the end of 1936, over 237,000 high school students had undergone military training. This student military training was overseen by the Society for the Implementation of the Three People's Principles of Sun Yat-sen, which also provided political education and sometimes gathered information on students' political beliefs.  Although the Nationalists made significant efforts to improve the military training of both officers and troops, they inherited deep-seated challenges that they were unable to completely overcome. A lack of facilities, outdated training manuals, low regard for military instructors, and the ongoing influence of regionalism and warlordism hindered progress. The Japanese would also later exploit these shortcomings of the Nationalist army. The Central Military Academy, which evolved from the Whampoa Military Academy established in 1923 in Guangzhou to train officers for the Northern Expedition, became the primary training institution for junior military officers. The academy offered a basic course, lasting eighteen months, which included general education, specialized training in various subjects, and field practice. This was followed by a two-year cadet training program focused on developing the skills necessary for junior military officers. Seventeen classes were admitted before the outbreak of war. Admission to the academy was highly competitive, with military officers receiving attractive salaries. For instance, in 1935, the academy received 10,000 applications for the twelfth class, but only 7% were accepted. Upon graduation, cadets were typically assigned to divisions within the Nationalist army loyal to Chiang Kai-shek. Their training, influenced by German advisors, resulted in a high-quality cadre. In modern China, most sergeants were veterans. While some units provided training for sergeants, a lack of formal education led to their diminished status. Truly qualified sergeants were rare. During his tenure as Minister of Military Training, General Bai Chongxi proposed establishing a sergeant school and creating a professional noncommissioned officer system; however, the Ministry of Military Affairs opposed this on financial grounds. While commanding officers enjoyed rapid promotions, military instructors did not. Furthermore, there was no system for transferring instructors to field commands or assigning commanders to military academies for extended periods. Despite minor updates to cover modern warfare concepts such as tank warfare and machine guns, Qing Dynasty military manuals were still in use at the Central Military Academy at the start of the war. Yeah, 1937 they were still rocking the old Qing books. Following the establishment of the Ministry of Military Training, a bureau for military translation was set up to evaluate existing course materials and translate military manuals, but its contributions were limited. Another significant shortcoming of military instruction focused on theory at the expense of practical application.  To enhance the quality of military officers, the Nationalist army instituted specialized schools for artillery, infantry, transport, engineering, and signals starting in 1931. These institutions were considered to have high-quality administrators and facilities. The Nationalists adopted German military training models, replacing the previously used Japanese models. They appointed German advisors to oversee instructor training at military academies and established three instructional divisions. By the onset of the Sino-Japanese War, 15,000 students had graduated from programs with a German military influence, resulting in the creation of about fifty combat divisions from these instructional units. However, the progress of other Nationalist army units was limited because their training was not aligned with contemporary battlefield realities. Before World War I, troops operated in close formations due to limited firepower. The widespread introduction of machine guns after World War I necessitated a shift to dispersed formations. Although a new drill manual issued by the Ministry of Military Training in 1935 introduced small-group tactics, few units adopted these methods. General Chen Cheng highlighted another underlying issue in 1938, commenting on the outmoded focus on parade ground drills and formal military manners. He noted, “We have paid too much attention to stereotypical formality and procedures of no practical use. Sometimes, even though soldiers could not get a haircut or take a bath for several months, their camps had to be in order. They underwent intensive training in close-order drill but learned little about gun handling, marksmanship, or maneuvering. This was inappropriate in peacetime, yet we continued this practice even after the Sino-Japanese War started, even using it on highly educated youth.” In contrast, the Communist army simplified training, emphasizing two essential skills: live-fire exercises and physical endurance, which significantly enhanced troop effectiveness in the challenging terrain characteristic of the Sino-Japanese War. Ultimately, the Nationalist army's training did not reach all soldiers. Only about half of all combat soldiers received adequate training, while the rest were neglected. According to statistics from the time, there were approximately five million military personnel during the Sino-Japanese War, with three million serving in logistics. Most of these logistics personnel had received little training, leading to disastrous consequences for overall combat effectiveness. As warfare has become more complex, the role of highly trained staff officers has become increasingly important. Napoleon developed operational plans close to the front and communicated orders via courier. During World War I, military commanders collected information at their headquarters and utilized telephones and automobiles to relay orders to the front lines. In World War II, with the battlefield expanding to include land, sea, and air, senior commanders often made decisions from headquarters far from the action, relying on a significant number of staff officers with specialized skills to keep them informed. In China, however, the staff officer system was underdeveloped. By 1937, only about 2,000 commanders and staff officers had received training. Prior to the Sino-Japanese War, most commanders managed staff work themselves, with staff officers serving primarily as military secretaries who drafted orders, reports, and maps. Many staff officers had no formal military training, and as a whole, the branch lacked respect, causing the most talented officers to avoid serving in it. The situation was even more dire for staff officer departments within local forces. For example, in March 1937, Liu Ziqing, a graduate of the Whampoa Military Academy, was appointed as the director of political instruction in the Forty-fourth Army, a unit under Sichuan warlord Liu Xiang. Liu Ziqing's account illustrates the dysfunction within the ranks: “The commander in chief was not supposed to manage the army and even did not know its whereabouts... But he could appoint relatives and former subordinates—who were officials and businessmen as well—to the army. Each month they would receive a small stipend. At headquarters, there was a long table and two rows of chairs. Around ten o'clock in the morning, senior officers signed in to indicate their presence. Those with other business would leave, while the remaining officers sat down to leisurely discuss star actresses, fortune-telling, business projects, mah-jongg, and opium. Occasionally they would touch on national affairs, chat about news articles, or share local gossip. In the afternoons, they primarily played mah-jongg, held banquets, and visited madams. Most mornings, the commander usually presided over these activities, and at first, I reported for duty as well. But I soon realized it was a waste of time and came very rarely. At headquarters, most staff members wore long gowns or Western-style suits, while military uniforms were a rare sight.” Most senior military personnel were trained at the Baoding Military Academy during the early republic. 2/3rds of commanders in chief, 37 %of army commanders, and 20 % of division commanders were Baoding graduates. Higher-ranking officers were more likely to have launched their careers there. In contrast, only 10 % of division commanders and a few army commanders were graduates of the Whampoa Military Academy. Additionally, commanders trained in local military schools and those with combat experience accounted for 1/3rd of all commanders. While the prevalence of civil war provided opportunities for rapid promotion, it also hindered officers' ability to update their training or gain experience in different military branches. German advisors expressed their concerns to Chiang Kai-shek, emphasizing that officers should first serve in junior roles before taking command. During one battle in 1938, Chiang noted, “Our commanders in chief are equivalent only to our enemy's regiment commanders, and our army and division commanders are only as competent as our enemy's battalion and company commanders.” Despite not viewing high-ranking Japanese officers as great strategists, Nationalist officers respected them as highly competent, diligent, and professional commanders who rarely made critical errors. The infantry was the primary component of the Nationalist army, with middle and junior infantry officers constituting over 80 %of all army officers. A 1936 registry of military officers listed 1,105 colonels and 2,159 lieutenant colonels within the infantry, demonstrating a significant outnumbering of Baoding graduates at ranks below lieutenant colonel. However, the quality of middle and junior infantry officers declined during the Sino-Japanese War; by 1944, only 27.3 % of these officers were from formal military academies, while those promoted from the ranks increased to 28.1 %. In 1937, 80 % of officers in an ordinary infantry battalion were military academy graduates, but this percentage dropped to 20 % during the war. Its hard to tell how educated soldiers were before the war, but it is generally believed that most were illiterate. In 1929, sociologist Tao Menghe surveyed 946 soldiers from a Shanxi garrison brigade and found that only 13 percent could compose a letter independently, while the rest had either never learned to read or were unable to write. In contrast, in August 1938, General Feng Yuxiang found that 80 percent of a regiment in Hunan were literate. Regardless, during the Sino-Japanese War, the quality of recruits steadily declined. More than 90 percent of soldiers were illiterate, and few possessed any basic scientific knowledge, which hindered their ability to master their weapons. On the battlefield, they heavily relied on middle and junior officers for guidance.  In autumn 1933, General Hans von Seeckt, the architect of the post World War I German army, visited China at the personal invitation of Chiang Kai-shek. In his recommendations for military reform, he identified China's greatest problem as its excessively large forces drawn from diverse backgrounds. He stated, “At present, the most pressing goal is to... establish a small, well-equipped army with high morale and combat effectiveness to replace the numerous poorly armed and trained forces.” He suggested forming an army of sixty divisions and recommended the establishment of a training regiment for military officers to equip them with the skills needed for modern warfare. Chiang Kai-shek accepted von Seeckt's proposals, and on January 26, 1935, he convened a National Military Reorganization Conference in Nanjing. On March 1, the Army Reorganization Bureau was established in Wuchang, under the leadership of General Chen Cheng. In the same month, General Alexander von Falkenhausen took charge of the German Military Advisors Group. Before war broke out, around nineteen divisions, roughly 300,000 troops received training from German advisors and were equipped with German-style weapons. At the onset of the Sino-Japanese War, the forces stemming from the First Army of the National Revolutionary Army and the Whampoa cadets, who had fought in the Northern Expedition, held the highest reputation and were referred to as the “core central forces” by the Japanese. Other notable forces included the Guangxi Army, Northwestern Army, Northeastern Army, some Uyghur units, the Guangdong Army, and the Shanxi Army. In contrast, provincial forces such as the Yunnan Army and Sichuan Army were viewed less favorably. Nationalist forces were generally far inferior to those of the Japanese enemy. In 1937, General He Yingqin noted that Nationalist forces had failed to prevail in 1932 and 1933, even when outnumbering the Japanese by 4-1.  In November 1937, during a national defense conference, Chiang Kai-shek stated, "In recent years we have worked hard, prepared actively, and achieved national unification. By the time of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, we were in a better domestic situation and had improved military preparedness compared to before. Since 1935, our strength has doubled. It increased by more than two to three times since January 1932 or September 1931 [when Japan attacked Shanghai and Mukden]. If peace had been achievable, we should have delayed the war for two or three years. Given an additional three years, our defensive capabilities would have been drastically different... Now, if we merely compare the military strength of China and Japan, we are certainly inferior." However, such assessments were overly optimistic, as Chiang failed to recognize that Japan's military capabilities would not have stagnated. 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. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek certainly was dealt a difficult hand of cards for the upcoming poker match he was to play. Yet the Chinese were resilient and they had to be for the absolute horror that would be inflicted upon them from 1937-1945. Until this point, their enemies had been far more lenient, the Empire of Japan would show no mercy.

As Cold War tensions escalated in the years following World War II, North Dakota found itself on the front lines of America's defense against a potential Soviet attack. The U.S. Air Force established a network of bases and radar stations across the state. One such installation was Finley Air Force Station, which became operational in 1951, just a mile and a half outside of Finley, North Dakota. Like the station near Fortuna, Finley was part of a broader radar defense network designed to monitor the skies for enemy aircraft and guide interceptor jets.

Why has Israel failed to win the PR war — and what can be done to change that? In this gripping episode, British journalist and thinker Melanie Phillips lays out a bold new strategy: stop apologizing, stop defending, and start exposing the moral inversion at the heart of modern anti-Zionism.We cover:→ The roots of Western antisemitism in intersectional ideology→ Why calling Israel a "colonizer" is a complete inversion of history→ The truth about Palestinian nationalism and the myth of the Nakba→ How to flip the moral script and go on offense in the information war→ The missing link between Jewish survival and saving Western civilizationWhether you support Israel, are on the fence, or just want to understand the core arguments, this is an essential conversation for our moment.Hosted by Ami Kozak and Michael Weber.

Today we get a new coat, try a new drug, and hear a new theory about what REALLY happened at Roswell! Original Air Date: Feb 13, 2020   Patreon (Get ad-free episodes, Patreon Discord Access, and more!) https://www.patreon.com/user?u=18482113 PayPal Donation Link https://tinyurl.com/mrxe36ph MERCH STORE!!! https://tinyurl.com/y8zam4o2 Amazon Wish List https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/28CIOGSFRUXAD?ref_=wl_share   Help Promote Dead Rabbit! Dual Flyer https://i.imgur.com/OhuoI2v.jpg "As Above" Flyer https://i.imgur.com/yobMtUp.jpg “Alien Flyer” By TVP VT U https://imgur.com/gallery/aPN1Fnw “QR Code Flyer” by Finn https://imgur.com/a/aYYUMAh   Links: Kentucky man skinned his neighbors' dogs to 'make myself a doggy coat,' police say https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/03/kentucky-man-skinned-neighbors-dogs-doggy-coat-police-say/2804470001/ DY-XJ U https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/14420916/dy-xj-u DY-XJ U https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1212025199392112640 Roswell 'was Soviet plot to create US panic' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8512408/Roswell-was-Soviet-plot-to-create-US-panic.html Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51:_An_Uncensored_History_of_America%27s_Top_Secret_Military_Base Area 51 'Uncensored': Was It UFOs Or The USSR? https://www.wbur.org/npr/136356848/area-51-uncensored-was-it-ufos-or-the-ussr Area 51, Roswell Photos Never Seen Before, Stalin Sent Alien Like Aviators to Area 51 http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2011/05/area-51-roswell-photos-never-seen.html Annie Jacobsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Jacobsen Richard Mingus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mingus Roswell UFO incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_incident   ----------------------------------------------- Logo Art By Ash Black Opening Song: "Atlantis Attacks" Closing Song: "Bella Royale" Music By Simple Rabbitron 3000 created by Eerbud Thanks to Chris K, Founder Of The Golden Rabbit Brigade Dead Rabbit Archivist Some Weirdo On Twitter AKA Jack YouTube Champ: Stewart Meatball Reddit Champ: TheLast747 The Haunted Mic Arm provided by Chyme Chili Forever Fluffle: Cantillions, Samson, Gregory Gilbertson, Jenny The Cat Discord Mods: Mason   http://www.DeadRabbit.com Email: DeadRabbitRadio@gmail.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/DeadRabbitRadio Facebook: www.Facebook.com/DeadRabbitRadio TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@deadrabbitradio Dead Rabbit Radio Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/DeadRabbitRadio/ Paranormal News Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ParanormalNews/ Mailing Address Jason Carpenter PO Box 1363 Hood River, OR 97031 Paranormal, Conspiracy, and True Crime news as it happens! Jason Carpenter breaks the stories they'll be talking about tomorrow, assuming the world doesn't end today. All Contents Of This Podcast Copyright Jason Carpenter 2018 - 2025  

While eyes are fixed on Ukraine, Putin’s influence continues to spread across eastern Europe, with many countries seeing a rise in far-right parties with Soviet-era sympathies. But why is this a winning policy?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Find out why the weak are indispensable by listening to this radio program. -------- Thank you for listening! Your support of Joni and Friends helps make this show possible.     Joni and Friends envisions a world where every person with a disability finds hope, dignity, and their place in the body of Christ. Become part of the global movement today at www.joniandfriends.org   Find more encouragement on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube.

Stalin's Final Films: Cinema, Socialist Realism, and Soviet Postwar Reality, 1945-1953 (Cornell UP, 2024) explores a neglected period in the history of Soviet cinema, breathing new life into a body of films long considered moribund as the pinnacle of Stalinism. While film censorship reached its apogee in this period and fewer films were made, film attendance also peaked as Soviet audiences voted with their seats and distinguished a clearly popular postwar cinema. Claire Knight examines the tensions between official ideology and audience engagement, and between education and entertainment, inherent in these popular films, as well as the financial considerations that shaped and constrained them. She explores how the Soviet regime used films to address the major challenges faced by the USSR after the Great Patriotic War (World War II), showing how war dramas, spy thrillers, Stalin epics, and rural comedies alike were mobilized to consolidate an official narrative of the war, reestablish Stalinist orthodoxy, and dramatize the rebuilding of socialist society. Yet, Knight also highlights how these same films were used by filmmakers more experimentally, exploring a diverse range of responses to the ideological crisis that lay at the heart of Soviet postwar culture, as a victorious people were denied the fruits of their sacrificial labor. After the war, new heroes were demanded by both the regime and Soviet audiences, and filmmakers sought to provide them, with at times surprising results. Stalin's Final Films mines Soviet cinema as an invaluable resource for understanding the unique character of postwar Stalinism and the cinema of the most repressive era in Soviet history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/film

From 2001- Paul Dickson discusses his book "Sputnik: The Shock of the Century." The title refers to the Soviet satellite that was sent into orbit in 1957 - a development which was nothing less than terrifying for many Americans who feared what the Soviet Union might be able to do with such technology.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the CIA began a covert operation known as “Operation Cyclone”, aiming to support Afghan mujahideen through funding, training, and supplying weapons. Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region became the hub for the mujahideen training camps. Gradually, Pakistan expanded its terror training infrastructure and expertise to its north eastern border with India to conduct a proxy war in the Indian states of Punjab and Kashmir. Pakistan now struggles to contain this Frankenstein it created, in the 1980s.

Feature: Bleak Week returns for Year 4, we talk to programmers behind the festival This year marks the 4th year of the American Cinematheque’s Bleak Week: Cinema of Despair, a weeklong festival dedicated to screening films with dark and bleak themes. In this year’s lineup, you’ll find screenings of Michael Haneke’s English adaptation of Funny Games, the Soviet anti-war film Come and See, and Studio Ghibli co-founder Isao Takahata’s Grave of the Fireflies. You’ll also find that the Year 4 lineup includes introductions/Q&As with the likes of Bill Hader, Elliot Gould, and Brady Corbet. Outside of the usual festival screenings here in Los Angeles, the American Cinematheque has partnered with other arthouse theaters across the country, and even The Prince Charles Cinema in London. Joining us to discuss this year’s iteration of the festival is Chris LeMaire, lead programmer on the American Cinematheque’s Bleak Week, and Grant Moninger, American Cinematheque’s Artistic Director. We also have our critics, Charles Solomon, Claudia Puig and Peter Rainer, commenting on what about the festival has allowed it to garner interest. Bleak Week runs from June 1-7. You can find this year’s Bleak Week lineup by clicking here or on bleakweek.com

Stalin's Final Films: Cinema, Socialist Realism, and Soviet Postwar Reality, 1945-1953 (Cornell UP, 2024) explores a neglected period in the history of Soviet cinema, breathing new life into a body of films long considered moribund as the pinnacle of Stalinism. While film censorship reached its apogee in this period and fewer films were made, film attendance also peaked as Soviet audiences voted with their seats and distinguished a clearly popular postwar cinema. Claire Knight examines the tensions between official ideology and audience engagement, and between education and entertainment, inherent in these popular films, as well as the financial considerations that shaped and constrained them. She explores how the Soviet regime used films to address the major challenges faced by the USSR after the Great Patriotic War (World War II), showing how war dramas, spy thrillers, Stalin epics, and rural comedies alike were mobilized to consolidate an official narrative of the war, reestablish Stalinist orthodoxy, and dramatize the rebuilding of socialist society. Yet, Knight also highlights how these same films were used by filmmakers more experimentally, exploring a diverse range of responses to the ideological crisis that lay at the heart of Soviet postwar culture, as a victorious people were denied the fruits of their sacrificial labor. After the war, new heroes were demanded by both the regime and Soviet audiences, and filmmakers sought to provide them, with at times surprising results. Stalin's Final Films mines Soviet cinema as an invaluable resource for understanding the unique character of postwar Stalinism and the cinema of the most repressive era in Soviet 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

News; A major exhibition about the Czech animator and illustrator Jiří Trnka opens in Prague; Revealing the fate of Czechoslovaks in Soviet Gulags; Interview with Steve Gove as the 24th Prague Fringe Festival begins its rich programme of performances.

Who was America's great power prophet during the Cold War? Perhaps not Henry Kissinger. In Zbig, Financial Times' U.S. editor, Edward Luce, makes the case that the Polish-American strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski was at least equal to Kissinger in his prophetic grasp of America's role in the Cold War world. Luce explores Brzezinski's role as Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, his combination of hard and soft power strategies against the Soviet Union, and his uncannily prescient predictions about Soviet collapse and the emergence of an "alliance of the aggrieved" against the United States. five key takeaways * Brzezinski was remarkably prescient - He accurately predicted Soviet collapse decades in advance, identifying the USSR's "Achilles heel" as its suppressed internal nations and calling it a "gerontocracy" destined to fail through "reverse natural selection."* The dinner that saved Europe - Brzezinski's coordination with Pope John Paul II in 1980 helped prevent Soviet invasion of Poland by persuading Solidarity to moderate their rhetoric while warning Moscow that Poland would be "indigestible."* Post-Cold War prophet of doom - Unlike triumphalist Americans in the 1990s, Brzezinski warned that U.S. hubris would create an "alliance of the aggrieved" (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) - a prediction that proved remarkably accurate.* Meritocracy believer with aristocratic standards - Despite his Polish noble background, Brzezinski championed American meritocracy but maintained old-world intellectual rigor, famously giving only one A per class regardless of size.* Study your adversaries - His key lesson for today: America must continue studying and understanding other nations' languages, cultures, and motivations rather than assuming everyone should simply follow the American model.Edward Luce is the US national editor and columnist at the Financial Times. Luce's biography of Zbigniew Brzezinski Zbig, The life of Zbig Brzezinski: America's great power prophet, came out this month. He is the author of three highly acclaimed books, The Retreat of Western Liberalism (2017), Time to Start Thinking: America in the Age of Descent (2012), and In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India (2007). He appears regularly on CNN, NPR, MSNBC's Morning Joe, and the BBC.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Stalin's Final Films: Cinema, Socialist Realism, and Soviet Postwar Reality, 1945-1953 (Cornell UP, 2024) explores a neglected period in the history of Soviet cinema, breathing new life into a body of films long considered moribund as the pinnacle of Stalinism. While film censorship reached its apogee in this period and fewer films were made, film attendance also peaked as Soviet audiences voted with their seats and distinguished a clearly popular postwar cinema. Claire Knight examines the tensions between official ideology and audience engagement, and between education and entertainment, inherent in these popular films, as well as the financial considerations that shaped and constrained them. She explores how the Soviet regime used films to address the major challenges faced by the USSR after the Great Patriotic War (World War II), showing how war dramas, spy thrillers, Stalin epics, and rural comedies alike were mobilized to consolidate an official narrative of the war, reestablish Stalinist orthodoxy, and dramatize the rebuilding of socialist society. Yet, Knight also highlights how these same films were used by filmmakers more experimentally, exploring a diverse range of responses to the ideological crisis that lay at the heart of Soviet postwar culture, as a victorious people were denied the fruits of their sacrificial labor. After the war, new heroes were demanded by both the regime and Soviet audiences, and filmmakers sought to provide them, with at times surprising results. Stalin's Final Films mines Soviet cinema as an invaluable resource for understanding the unique character of postwar Stalinism and the cinema of the most repressive era in Soviet history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/performing-arts

Stalin's Final Films: Cinema, Socialist Realism, and Soviet Postwar Reality, 1945-1953 (Cornell UP, 2024) explores a neglected period in the history of Soviet cinema, breathing new life into a body of films long considered moribund as the pinnacle of Stalinism. While film censorship reached its apogee in this period and fewer films were made, film attendance also peaked as Soviet audiences voted with their seats and distinguished a clearly popular postwar cinema. Claire Knight examines the tensions between official ideology and audience engagement, and between education and entertainment, inherent in these popular films, as well as the financial considerations that shaped and constrained them. She explores how the Soviet regime used films to address the major challenges faced by the USSR after the Great Patriotic War (World War II), showing how war dramas, spy thrillers, Stalin epics, and rural comedies alike were mobilized to consolidate an official narrative of the war, reestablish Stalinist orthodoxy, and dramatize the rebuilding of socialist society. Yet, Knight also highlights how these same films were used by filmmakers more experimentally, exploring a diverse range of responses to the ideological crisis that lay at the heart of Soviet postwar culture, as a victorious people were denied the fruits of their sacrificial labor. After the war, new heroes were demanded by both the regime and Soviet audiences, and filmmakers sought to provide them, with at times surprising results. Stalin's Final Films mines Soviet cinema as an invaluable resource for understanding the unique character of postwar Stalinism and the cinema of the most repressive era in Soviet history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

What do the KGB and the former CEO of Cincinnati Children's Hospital have in common? At different times, they’ve each looked to a guy named Eugene Litvak for help. He only said yes to Cincinnati — but he saved that hospital more than a hundred million dollars a year. For the last few decades, Litvak – a Soviet émigré with a PhD in math – has been on a mission: save U.S. hospitals from financial ruin, and improve the lives of doctors, nurses, and patients. He says he has just the formula to do it, lots of prominent experts agree, and he’s documented impressive results so far: Financial savings, fewer hospital-related deaths, lower staff turnover, and shorter wait times. But Litvak and his allies are still struggling to convince more hospital CEOs to try his method. We talk with Litvak about his wild life story and how he found the fix that he says could revolutionize American hospitals. And we speak with experts to determine why more hospitals don’t try it. Here’s a transcript of this episode. Send your stories and questions. Or call 724 ARM-N-LEG. Of course we’d love for you to support this show.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The JFK Assassination: Conspiracy, Cover-Up, and the Truth Episode Description On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Officially, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone—but decades of inconsistencies, missing evidence, and classified documents suggest something much darker may have happened. In this episode, we break down the official narrative, explore the leading conspiracy theories, and look at newly declassified files that might finally shine a light on what really happened that day in Dealey Plaza. Episode Breakdown

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Jonah Goldberg is joined by Dr. Leon Aron for some Remnant-style Kremlinology. Jonah and Dr. Aron discuss Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump's relationship, the state of the war in Ukraine, and what will happen to Russia without Putin at the helm. Plus: a long march through Russian history and the precarious position of top Russian military brass. Show Notes:—Dr. Leon Aron's American Enterprise Institute page—Leon in Politico: “7 Critical Things Trump Doesn't Understand about Putin” The Remnant is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Jonah's G-File newsletter, regular livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Did the British send Royal Navy fleets into the fight against Japan? Was Stalin the new Napoleon of Europe? And what exactly is a wigeon? Join Al Murray and James Holland as they discuss a range of poltical and military topics, from The West to The Far East, as well as answering subscriber questions. Listen ad-free on Patreon and get your questions featured on the show - sign up at patreon.com/wehaveways A Goalhanger Production Produced by James Regan Exec Producer: Tony Pastor Social: @WeHaveWaysPod Email: wehavewayspodcast@gmail.com Join our ‘Independent Company' to watch exclusive livestreams, get presale events, and our weekly newsletter - packed with discounts. Membership Club: patreon.com/wehaveways Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fans of George Smiley, John le Carré's legendary spymaster, have reason to celebrate. In a rare double coup for the espionage world, Nick Harkaway—le Carré's son—has announced The Taper Man, a new Smiley novel arriving in 2026, while The Spy Who Came in From the Cold will receive its first-ever stage adaptation in the West End this autumn. The announcement marks a major return of the “Circus,” le Carré's iconic fictionalised British intelligence service, and the literary rebirth of one of spy fiction's most enduring characters. Join Spybrary - the ultimate community for spy fiction fans. The Taper Man: Smiley Heads Stateside Set in 1965, The Taper Man picks up 18 months after the events of Harkaway's bestselling Karla's Choice and places George Smiley in unfamiliar terrain—America. The novel explores Smiley's pursuit of a communist network on the US West Coast, threading together geopolitical paranoia with moral ambiguity in classic le Carré fashion. The story unfolds amid the tumultuous backdrop of the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, with Smiley navigating tensions with the CIA ("the Cousins") while unravelling Soviet infiltrations that stretch back to the 1950s. “It's time to meet our American Cousins,” Harkaway says. “We're following the breadcrumbs of a messy debacle in Helsinki all the way to California, uncovering the truth of Karla's 1950s network and pursuing Roy Bland into the USSR.” Publishing director Harriet Bourton of Viking describes The Taper Man as “an extraordinary new addition to the iconic literary world of John le Carré,” praising Harkaway's ability to honour the legacy while making it unmistakably his own. Smiley on Stage: The Spy Who Came in From the Cold at Soho Place Alongside the novel news, spy fans will see Smiley on stage for the first time this November, when The Spy Who Came in From the Cold—le Carré's 1963 classic—premieres at @sohoplace in London. Directed by Jeremy Herrin and adapted by acclaimed playwright David Eldridge, the production follows a successful run at Chichester Festival Theatre. Rory Keenan stars as Alec Leamas, the embittered British agent at the heart of the novel, with Agnes O'Casey playing Liz Gold. George Smiley will be portrayed by John Ramm. Clare Cornwell, director of the le Carré estate, says: “We are delighted to be celebrating the return of the Circus and George Smiley through these two new projects.” The John le Carré Legacy Continued Nick Harkaway, the fourth son of David Cornwell (John le Carré), previously completed the posthumous publication of Silverview and edited A Private Spy, a collection of his father's letters. In Karla's Choice, he took the bold step of writing new fiction within the le Carré universe—an effort praised by critics and readers alike. Watch our interview all about Karla's Choice with Nick Harkaway. With The Taper Man, Harkaway deepens his claim to the Smiley legacy while expanding the geopolitical canvas of the saga. For longtime fans of le Carré, and the next generation discovering his work through adaptations and new fiction, 2025 may just be the most thrilling year since Smiley first came in from the cold.

2025 marks the eightieth anniversary of Germany’s surrender and the fall of the Third Reich. Likewise, World War II is the single most studied conflict in human history. But most Western accounts offer a one-dimensional interpretation: the war was a noble crusade against fascism, creating a convenient parable about good and evil. But this depiction ignores a far messier reality. But what went through the minds of the actual heads of state that led their nations through the war? Did they fight according to our understanding, or did they want to defend their nations’ global empires and ancient legacy? A case can be argued that World War II was not a battle in which democracy triumphed over totalitarianism but rather a massive colonial war waged by rival empires. The war formally ended the era of British and Japanese colonialism but established in their places the highly militarized Soviet and American states, whose access to nuclear weapons threatened the possibility of annihilation. As we grapple with the legacy of the war and its influence on geopolitics today, historian and today’s guest Paul Thomas Chamberlin urges us to reconsider the conflict from a new perspective in his book “Scorched Earth: A Global History of World War II.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is Georgia the canary in the coal mine for a new Soviet-style rise in Eastern Europe? Studio Sponsor: Cardio Miracle - "Unlock the secret to a healthier heart, increased energy levels, and transform your cardiovascular fitness like never before.": https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart What if the war in Ukraine isn't just about Ukraine? What if it's a warning shot for the rest of us? In this episode of The Brian Nichols Show, we're diving into the underreported political firestorm brewing in Georgia - not the peach state, but the one nestled between Russia and Europe. Lika Kobeshavidze, a Georgian political writer and Young Voices fellow, joins Brian to unpack how her homeland is caught between freedom and authoritarianism, and why you should care. You'll hear firsthand what it was like growing up in a "free" Georgia only to see it slowly slip back into the grip of authoritarianism. From Russian occupation to election rigging, to government crackdowns on peaceful protestors, Lika shares a chilling reality that sounds all too familiar in today's global political climate. This isn't just history - it's happening now. But this episode isn't just doom and gloom. It's a masterclass in persuasion, messaging, and resistance. Brian and Lika dissect the cultural failures that allowed pro-Russia sentiment to creep back into Georgia and explore how smart marketing and narrative-building could turn the tide. Spoiler: it's not that different from what America just went through. We also tackle tough questions like: Is Russia a genuine global threat or just a declining empire with nukes? What's really stopping the EU and NATO from welcoming Georgia in? And how can the West provide meaningful support without triggering global war? Lika doesn't pull punches - and neither does Brian. If you've ever wondered how liberty can die slowly - not with tanks, but with laws - this is the conversation you can't afford to miss. Watch to the end for a rallying call to action and what YOU can do to support freedom in Georgia before it's too late. ❤️ Order Cardio Miracle (https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart) with code TBNS at checkout for 15% off and take a step towards better heart health and overall well-being!

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fancies himself as Israel's Winston Churchill, when in fact, the Gaza war has demonstrated he is exactly the opposite of Great Britain's storied leader, asserted Anshel Pfeffer, Israel correspondent for The Economist, former Haaretz analyst and a Netanyahu biographer, on the Haaretz Podcast. "We shouldn't be making this World War II – the Nazis against everybody else, and comparing that to Israel's war with Hamas. But that's being almost forced upon us by Netanyahu and his supporters," said Pfeffer in conversation with host Allison Kaplan Sommer. Pfeffer, who recently published a column in Haaretz about Netanyahu's repeated slogan of achieving "total victory" over Hamas and his misguided identification with Churchill in the second world war, said "Churchill was a brilliant wartime leader. He managed to bring the British together at that crucial point in history, uniting a country at a time of a terrible war. Yet, he didn't have the ability to win elections. Netanyahu is the opposite. As we've seen so clearly, he is totally useless at uniting Israel at a time of war, but he's very, very good at winning elections and clinging onto power." Pfeffer also pointed out that the "scorched earth" victory model that Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners are pursuing in Gaza hews closer to former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and Russian President Vladimir Putin than Churchill and the other Western allies. Netanyahu should be reminded, Pfeffer said, that the U.K. and the U.S. were "magnanimous and benevolent" victors who poured millions into rebuilding a de-Nazified Germany. "That is a very, very different vision of victory."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The announcement that former President Joe Biden has cancer probably isn't much of a surprise considering that his entire presidency was nothing but the final years of a diseased, senile old man. These facts were covered up by a media that lied in Soviet style so brazenly that it's comical. Of course, now his body will be burdened with all of the sins of the Democrat party and cast outside of the city to be slaughtered. We have to remember that the rumors of excessive drug use by Biden, probably administered without consent, are not much different than the drug use of the president of Ukraine, who is clearly a coke head, or the recent exposure of the leaders of France, Germany and the UK who were caught with a nice bag of cocaine on the table with a drug spoon. Even the current US president is a drug addict with McDonald's and the coke that ends with cola.Perhaps the use of various drugs from caffeine to processed food - which includes hormones, dyes, and preservatives - to the more extreme drugs like cocaine, heroin, opioids, and the like, plays some role in the increased notion that the world is getting more dangerous, violent, etc., or at least why mental health issues have exploded in diagnosis. Maybe the world is becoming more dangerous, or based on crime statistics, if they are being reported consistently and honestly, maybe the world is only being perceived as such. This could be the result of a population that is paranoid, anxious, confused, and chronically ill in body and mind. This could have something to do with the excessive consumption of legal and illegal drugs, and ultra-processed foods, all things that can induce paranoia, anxiety, delusion, anger and violence. In fact 3/4 or more of all crime in the United States can be directly related to drug abuse of some sort. Just consider the attitude of someone who doesn't get their caffeine hit in the morning, or how people are sincerely protesting the removal of chemicals and toxins from the US food supply. Considering how drastically opioids can change the brain, and considering the massively increased usage of things like psilocybin in the USA, it is no wonder that collectively people are leaping off the edge in everything from conspiracies to a increasingly nastier desire for one conflict after another. In fact, up to 30% of people who take things like psilocybin have poor reactions that result in anxiety and paranoia, brought on by the wrong setting, dose, quality, and mind set. Combining all of these factors certainly produces, alongside social media and mainstream media, a consistent set of culprits that are contributing to the perception that the world is becoming angrier. It's almost like some have been dosed with the fictional fear toxin of Dr Crane. In other parts of the world, crime is low and this can be directly associated with diet and drug use. *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.-FREE ARCHIVE (w. ads)SUBSCRIPTION ARCHIVEX / TWITTER FACEBOOKYOUTUBEMAIN WEBSITECashApp: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.comEMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

Two weeks after the far right's George Simion garnered a whopping 41 percent in the first round of presidential elections, a surge in voter turnout instead propelled the pro-EU mayor of Bucharest Nicosur Dan onto a rocky road to victory. Dan wasn't even a candidate when the constitutional council annulled last November's first round of voting and barred pro-Russian TikTok star Calin Georgescu over foreign meddling and campaign financing records that claimed zero spending whatsoever. The call to do over the election drew criticism from the likes of JD Vance and Elon Musk in the US but also from some European liberals who felt the issue should have been sorted at the ballot box. We'll ask how this result's going down and more broadly about a onetime Soviet bloc dictatorship often dogged by corruption and that's felt the growing pains of EU membership. What next for a frontline state to the war in Ukraine and how does the rest of Europe address the grievances of citizens in a fast-changing world? Produced by Rebecca Gnignati, Elisa Amiri, Jimena Morales-Velasco.

Author Nick Bunker reports on NSC 68, which prepared for a potential Soviet attack with atomic bombs in 1954. More details to follow later. 1956 ENEWETAK ATOLL

In this episode, I break down how Biden's sudden cancer diagnosis might be the final blow to the credibility of the legacy media. I take you back to Operation Mockingbird and show how media deception and political bias have merged into one. We dig into Biden's questionable health reports, the timing of this cancer announcement, and the media's long track record of covering for him.–If you wanna take advantage of this ECONOMIC BOOM, click on the link https://neoscdg.org/golden-age-summit or scan the QR code and get registered!*The content presented by sponsors may contain affiliate links. When you click and shop the links, Turley Talks may receive a small commission.*Head over to https://turley.pub/VegasGoesBitcoin and reserve your seat today. I'll see you there!Highlights:“The media was used by the CIA as an instrument of deception and misinformation.”“Would the same doctor who claimed Joe Biden was ‘healthy' and ‘vigorous' also cover up a cancer diagnosis until after the presidential election? Of course he would!”“What we've been witnessing over the last four years is emphatically not media bias; this was a blatant, organized deception.”“The legacy media is now treating us the way they were designed to treat Soviet officials. They are lying to and trying to manipulate us in a manner comparable to how they sought to mislead a foreign enemy!” Timestamps: [01:17] CIA's covert Operation Mockingbird involving the media[05:14] Biden's questionable medical assessments and the media covering for him[09:52] The timing and motives behind the cancer diagnosis reveal[11:23] Legacy media's credibility implodes–Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.FOLLOW me on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalksSign up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts to get lots of articles on conservative trends: https://turleytalks.com/subscribe-to-our-newsletter**The use of any copyrighted material in this podcast is done so for educational and informational purposes only including parody, commentary, and criticism. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015). It is believed that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

How did one peace conference in Yalta in 1945 completely transform the world in just eight days? What was Joseph Stalin's backstory before becoming the Soviet leader? What is the relevance of the Yalta conference to global politics today? In a brand new series, Anita and William explore how Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt drew new borders and created new empire-like spheres of influence towards the end of The Second World War. With Europe left in a state of devastation, how did these three men reshape the world over the course of 8 days?  Love History? Get our exclusive History Today deal! You can get started with a 3-month trial for only £5 at https://historytoday.com/empire  ----------------- Empire Club: Become a member of the Empire Club to receive early access to miniseries, ad-free listening, early access to live show tickets, bonus episodes, book discounts, our exclusive newsletter, and access to our members' chatroom on Discord! Head to empirepoduk.com to sign up. For more Goalhanger Podcasts, head to www.goalhanger.com.  ----------------- Email: empire@goalhanger.com Instagram: @empirepoduk  Blue Sky: @empirepoduk  X: @empirepoduk Assistant Producer: Becki Hills Producer: Anouska Lewis Senior Producer: Callum Hill Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Polish émigré Zbigniew Brzezinski – known as ‘Zbig' – rose to prominence in America during the Cold War as a key intellectual architect of US foreign policy. He was National Security Advisor to President Carter and was a trusted advisor to many US presidents from John F Kennedy onwards. Yet, despite helping to shape American foreign policy during critical moments, he is not as well-known or celebrated as his lifelong rival Henry Kissinger.   The Financial Times' chief US columnist Edward Luce joins Freddy Gray on this episode of Americano to talk about his new book Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Cold War Prophet. The book aims to bridge the gap in the historiography of the Cold War and looks at Zbig's legacy – from preventing a Soviet invasion of Poland, to strengthening relations with China, to shaping America's response to 9/11. Was Zbig a Cold War prophet? Produced by Patrick Gibbons.

In this episode of Your History Your Story, we're joined by internationally bestselling author and historian Giles Milton to discuss his compelling new book, “The Stalin Affair: The Impossible Alliance That Won the War.” Giles takes us deep into the high-stakes world of World War II diplomacy, where Allied leaders Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were forced to navigate the unpredictable and often explosive temperament of Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin. He also shines a light on the lesser-known men and women who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to manage Stalin and hold the fragile alliance together.Music: "With Loved Ones" Jay Man Photo(s): Courtesy of Giles MiltonThank you for supporting Your History Your Story!YHYS Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YHYS PayPal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YHYS: Social Links: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YHYS: Join our mailing list: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ #yhys #yourhistoryyourstory #history #storytelling #podcast #njpodcast #youhaveastorytoo #jamesgardner #historian #storytellerTo purchase "The Stalin Affair":GilesMilton.com⁠

Polish émigré Zbigniew Brzezinski – known as ‘Zbig' – rose to prominence in America during the Cold War as a key intellectual architect of US foreign policy. He was National Security Advisor to President Carter and was a trusted advisor to many US presidents from John F Kennedy onwards. Yet, despite helping to shape American foreign policy during critical moments, he is not as well-known or celebrated as his lifelong rival Henry Kissinger.   The Financial Times' chief US columnist Edward Luce joins Freddy Gray on this episode of Americano to talk about his new book Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Cold War Prophet. The book aims to bridge the gap in the historiography of the Cold War and looks at Zbig's legacy – from preventing a Soviet invasion of Poland, to strengthening relations with China, to shaping America's response to 9/11. Was Zbig a Cold War prophet? Produced by Patrick Gibbons.

Nanoparticle Gel Could Help Save Degraded Coral Reefs Soviet spacecraft Kosmos 482 likely crashed back to Earth Saturday morning Soviet spacecraft Kosmos 482 crashes back to Earth, disappearing into Indian Ocean after 53 years in orbit | Live Science NASA's Europa Clipper Captures Mars in Infrared - NASA Researchers unveil unprecedented satellite that will have to be turned off when it floats over the US: 'This was a pity' New Biomass satellite will provide an unprecedented look at the planet's forests - ABC News Contact the Show: coolstuffcommute@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Larry Serra is a former Naval Intelligence Liaison Officer whose covert missions along the Vietnam-Cambodia border placed him at the heart of one of the Vietnam War's most dangerous fronts.From 1967 to 1970, Larry served as an officer in the United States Navy, spending nearly two years operating in Vietnam and Cambodia's combat zones. In 1969, he volunteered for the critical intelligence post at Ha Tien, where he ran spy networks, crossed into Cambodia for clandestine missions, and exposed communist supply routes into South Vietnam. His work uncovered Soviet communications intercepts and revealed vulnerabilities at the port of Sihanoukville, a key hub of communist weapons smuggling. In early 1970, Larry brokered a top-secret weapons agreement between the U.S. and the Cambodian Navy - approved by the White House - as Cambodia teetered on the brink of civil war.For his actions, Larry received the Bronze Star, Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V," Air Medal, and other decorations. After Vietnam, he built a distinguished legal career and played a pivotal role in helping rebuild Cambodia's legal system following the fall of the Khmer Rouge. FOLLOW JACKInstagram: @JackCarrUSA X:  @JackCarrUSAFacebook:  @JackCarr YouTube:  @JackCarrUSASPONSORSCRY HAVOC – A Tom Reece Thriller https://www.officialjackcarr.com/books/cry-havoc/Bravo Company Manufacturing - BCM Stock MOD3:https://bravocompanyusa.com/bcm-stock-mod-3-black/  and on Instagram @BravoCompanyUSATHE SIGs of Jack Carr:Visit https://www.sigsauer.com/ and on Instagram @sigsauerinc Jack Carr Gear: Explore the gear here https://jackcarr.co/gear 

This week on Planetary Radio, we explore the decades-long journey of Kosmos 482, a Soviet-era Venus probe that spent 53 years orbiting Earth before its dramatic return on May 10, 2025. Ben Fernando, a postdoctoral researcher in seismology and planetary science at Johns Hopkins University, joins us to explain the history of Kosmos 482 and how seismology and acoustic sensors are helping scientists detect and locate objects impacting Earth. Then Bruce Betts, our chief scientist, joins us for What's Up, where we look back at the largest human-made objects ever to crash back to Earth. Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/2025-kosmos-482See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On 14 May 1955, the leader of the Soviet Union and leaders from seven European countries met to sign the Warsaw Pact. In the years following World War Two, the Soviet Union and the United States started the worldwide Cold War. While Western powers feared the spread of communism, the Soviets worried about US atomic bombs. What resulted was the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1949. The Warsaw Pact was signed six years later in response to West Germany joining NATO. Natasha Fernandes uses archive of East Germany's leader Otto Grotewohl to tell the story.Eye-witness accounts brought to life by archive. Witness History is for those fascinated by the past. We take you to the events that have shaped our world through the eyes of the people who were there. For nine minutes every day, we take you back in time and all over the world, to examine wars, coups, scientific discoveries, cultural moments and much more. Recent episodes explore everything from football in Brazil, the history of the ‘Indian Titanic' and the invention of air fryers, to Public Enemy's Fight The Power, subway art and the political crisis in Georgia. We look at the lives of some of the most famous leaders, artists, scientists and personalities in history, including: visionary architect Antoni Gaudi and the design of the Sagrada Familia; Michael Jordan and his bespoke Nike trainers; Princess Diana at the Taj Mahal; and Görel Hanser, manager of legendary Swedish pop band Abba on the influence they've had on the music industry. You can learn all about fascinating and surprising stories, such as the time an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the President of the United States in protest of America's occupation of Iraq; the creation of the Hollywood commercial that changed advertising forever; and the ascent of the first Aboriginal MP.(Photo: Soviet Premier, Nikolai Bulganin (centre) addresses Soviet leaders at the Warsaw Conference on 14 May 1955. From left to right: Marshal Ivan Koniev, Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, Bulganin and Marshal Gregori Zhukov. Credit: Bettmann via Getty images)

Pakistan and India have accused each other of violating the truce which ended four days of attacks. Also: Syrian Jews return home, and some confusion over the return to Earth of parts of an old Soviet spacecraft.

>Join Jocko Underground< Jocko Podcast 489 explores the power of thought control, the vulnerability of the human mind, and historical brainwashing techniques. Jocko and Echo discuss a declassified 1956 CIA document on psychological manipulation, drawing from Korean War POW cases and Soviet tactics to show how beliefs and values can be deeply altered. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/jocko-podcast/exclusive-content