Podcasts about Soviet Union

In this episode, we discuss the rising backlash to last week's comments about Nick Fuentes, the distinction between personal judgment and deplatforming, and the broader question of what ideas belong in public discourse. We explore the failures of remedial education across major universities, the collapsing academic standards that allow students to advance without basic literacy and numeracy, and the systemic incentives that push institutions to “get students through” rather than educate them. We examine the roots of the public-school crisis, the role of property-tax funding, the constraints of unionized pay structures, and why market incentives and genuine school choice may be the only workable path forward. We also revisit lessons from the Soviet Union, grocery-store abundance, and what markets reveal about human flourishing in ways central planning never can. 00:00 Introduction and Overview 01:19 The Camino Story and Unexpected Love of Hiking 05:03 Walking Ancient Roman Roads with Modern Tech 07:50 Criticism, Free Speech, and the Nick Fuentes Debate 13:24 Where to Draw the Line on Platforming Extremists 14:49 The Difference Between Preference and Censorship 18:43 Foolishness of the Week: University of Arizona AI Prompting Class 20:13 College Remediation and the Math Skills Crisis 23:08 The Collapse of Writing Standards in Higher Education 24:31 Why Students Aren't Being Educated Before College 29:08 Public Schools, Property Taxes, and Unequal Outcomes 33:53 Why Money and Teacher Quality Don't Correlate 35:34 School Choice, Competition, and Market Incentives 37:02 Why Centralized Solutions Don't Work in Education 39:50 Markets, Feedback Loops, and Real Accountability 46:11 Closing Thoughts and Listener Send-Off 47:33 Aftershow: Khrushchev, Yeltsin, and the Grocery Store Lesson 53:51 The Power of Markets: Food, Abundance, and Freedom Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In 1989, Boris Yeltsin walked into a Houston supermarket, and walked out ready to end an empire. What he saw in Texas that day would shake the foundations of the Soviet Union. * On the Very Special Episodes podcast, we tell one incredible story each week. Follow us down a different rabbit hole every Wednesday. Special thanks to composer Evan Mack for letting us play a clip of “Make Your Move,” from his original opera Yeltsin in Texas. Learn more at evanmack.com. And thanks to Yelena Biberman for sharing her story. Check out her excellent podcast How to Kill a Superpower. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations (Princeton University Press, 2025), Carl Benedikt Frey challenges the conventional belief that economic and technological progress is inevitable. For most of human history, stagnation was the norm, and even today progress and prosperity in the world's largest, most advanced economies--the United States and China--have fallen short of expectations. To appreciate why we cannot depend on any AI-fueled great leap forward, Frey offers a remarkable and fascinating journey across the globe, spanning the past 1,000 years, to explain why some societies flourish and others fail in the wake of rapid technological change. By examining key historical moments--from the rise of the steam engine to the dawn of AI--Frey shows why technological shifts have shaped, and sometimes destabilized, entire civilizations. He explores why some leading technological powers of the past--such as Song China, the Dutch Republic, and Victorian Britain--ultimately lost their innovative edge, why some modern nations such as Japan had periods of rapid growth followed by stagnation, and why planned economies like the Soviet Union collapsed after brief surges of progress. Frey uncovers a recurring tension in history: while decentralization fosters the exploration of new technologies, bureaucracy is crucial for scaling them. When institutions fail to adapt to technological change, stagnation inevitably follows. Only by carefully balancing decentralization and bureaucracy can nations innovate and grow over the long term--findings that have worrying implications for the United States, Europe, China, and other economies today. Through a rich narrative that weaves together history, economics, and technology, How Progress Ends reveals that managing the future requires us to draw the right lessons from the past. Carl Benedikt Frey is the Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of AI and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at the Oxford Martin School, both at the University of Oxford. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. 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

In How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations (Princeton University Press, 2025), Carl Benedikt Frey challenges the conventional belief that economic and technological progress is inevitable. For most of human history, stagnation was the norm, and even today progress and prosperity in the world's largest, most advanced economies--the United States and China--have fallen short of expectations. To appreciate why we cannot depend on any AI-fueled great leap forward, Frey offers a remarkable and fascinating journey across the globe, spanning the past 1,000 years, to explain why some societies flourish and others fail in the wake of rapid technological change. By examining key historical moments--from the rise of the steam engine to the dawn of AI--Frey shows why technological shifts have shaped, and sometimes destabilized, entire civilizations. He explores why some leading technological powers of the past--such as Song China, the Dutch Republic, and Victorian Britain--ultimately lost their innovative edge, why some modern nations such as Japan had periods of rapid growth followed by stagnation, and why planned economies like the Soviet Union collapsed after brief surges of progress. Frey uncovers a recurring tension in history: while decentralization fosters the exploration of new technologies, bureaucracy is crucial for scaling them. When institutions fail to adapt to technological change, stagnation inevitably follows. Only by carefully balancing decentralization and bureaucracy can nations innovate and grow over the long term--findings that have worrying implications for the United States, Europe, China, and other economies today. Through a rich narrative that weaves together history, economics, and technology, How Progress Ends reveals that managing the future requires us to draw the right lessons from the past. Carl Benedikt Frey is the Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of AI and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at the Oxford Martin School, both at the University of Oxford. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations (Princeton University Press, 2025), Carl Benedikt Frey challenges the conventional belief that economic and technological progress is inevitable. For most of human history, stagnation was the norm, and even today progress and prosperity in the world's largest, most advanced economies--the United States and China--have fallen short of expectations. To appreciate why we cannot depend on any AI-fueled great leap forward, Frey offers a remarkable and fascinating journey across the globe, spanning the past 1,000 years, to explain why some societies flourish and others fail in the wake of rapid technological change. By examining key historical moments--from the rise of the steam engine to the dawn of AI--Frey shows why technological shifts have shaped, and sometimes destabilized, entire civilizations. He explores why some leading technological powers of the past--such as Song China, the Dutch Republic, and Victorian Britain--ultimately lost their innovative edge, why some modern nations such as Japan had periods of rapid growth followed by stagnation, and why planned economies like the Soviet Union collapsed after brief surges of progress. Frey uncovers a recurring tension in history: while decentralization fosters the exploration of new technologies, bureaucracy is crucial for scaling them. When institutions fail to adapt to technological change, stagnation inevitably follows. Only by carefully balancing decentralization and bureaucracy can nations innovate and grow over the long term--findings that have worrying implications for the United States, Europe, China, and other economies today. Through a rich narrative that weaves together history, economics, and technology, How Progress Ends reveals that managing the future requires us to draw the right lessons from the past. Carl Benedikt Frey is the Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of AI and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at the Oxford Martin School, both at the University of Oxford. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations (Princeton University Press, 2025), Carl Benedikt Frey challenges the conventional belief that economic and technological progress is inevitable. For most of human history, stagnation was the norm, and even today progress and prosperity in the world's largest, most advanced economies--the United States and China--have fallen short of expectations. To appreciate why we cannot depend on any AI-fueled great leap forward, Frey offers a remarkable and fascinating journey across the globe, spanning the past 1,000 years, to explain why some societies flourish and others fail in the wake of rapid technological change. By examining key historical moments--from the rise of the steam engine to the dawn of AI--Frey shows why technological shifts have shaped, and sometimes destabilized, entire civilizations. He explores why some leading technological powers of the past--such as Song China, the Dutch Republic, and Victorian Britain--ultimately lost their innovative edge, why some modern nations such as Japan had periods of rapid growth followed by stagnation, and why planned economies like the Soviet Union collapsed after brief surges of progress. Frey uncovers a recurring tension in history: while decentralization fosters the exploration of new technologies, bureaucracy is crucial for scaling them. When institutions fail to adapt to technological change, stagnation inevitably follows. Only by carefully balancing decentralization and bureaucracy can nations innovate and grow over the long term--findings that have worrying implications for the United States, Europe, China, and other economies today. Through a rich narrative that weaves together history, economics, and technology, How Progress Ends reveals that managing the future requires us to draw the right lessons from the past. Carl Benedikt Frey is the Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of AI and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at the Oxford Martin School, both at the University of Oxford. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

When World War II ended 80 years ago, the fighting ended but global stability and peace did not emerge. Instead, a "Cold War" between the forces of capitalism and communism, represented by the U.S. and Soviet Union, dominated global politics and led to instability, interventions, wars, a militarized economy, a mass-surveillance National Security State, and so much more---and its legacy continued to this day as we look at Venezuela, Palestine, Iran, and other places across the globe.The U.S. posed the Cold War as a battle between "freedom" and Soviet domination, but that was always a ruse as the Americans held overwhelming dominance in all major military and economic matters. The U.S. had emerged from the war with global hegemony while the USSR had lose about 25 million people, a million farms and factories, and half its economy.So, 80 years later, it's important to examine and understand the role of the U.S. in using its power to create global dominance, disrupt 3rd World development, and destabilize countries across the globe. ----------------------------------

1991 ushered in a new epoch of hope as Russia marched toward democracy and prosperity on the ruins of the Soviet Union. In 2025 those hopes for a thriving, democratic Russia have not panned out. Irina Borogan and Andrei Soldatov lived it as journalists in Russia from the start of Putin's reign. Specialists in documenting Russia's secret services, they've reported many, many important stories over the past decades. Our Dear Friends in Moscow: The Inside Story of a Broken Generation (PublicAffairs, 2025) tells an intimate story of a group of friends in journalism whose view diverged against the backdrop of Putin's revanchist, authoritarian rule. Soldatov and Borogan narrate the personal, perplexing, and painful story of the friends and colleagues who assimilated Kremlin-aligned views as the authors themselves moved from opposition journalists to exiles under threat from the Putin's regime. This conversation scratches the surface of the book's riveting and important attempt to make sense of polarization and allegiances with weighty consequences. Andrei Soldatov is a Russian investigative journalist in exile, co-founder and editor of Agentura ru, a watchdog of the Russian secret services' activities. He has been covering security services and terrorism issues since 1999. Irina Borogan is a Russian investigative journalist in exile. Borogan reported on terrorist attacks in Russia, including hostage takings in Moscow and Beslan. In 1999 Borogan covered the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia, in 2006 she covered the Lebanon War and tensions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. She chronicled the Kremlin's campaign to gain control of civil society and strengthen the government's police services under the pretext of fighting extremism. Irina Borogan and Andrei Soldatov are currently fellows at King's College London and the Center for Europan Policy Analysis (CEPA). They are co-authors of four books: The New Nobility: The Restoration of Russia's Security State and the Enduring Legacy of the KGB (2010); The Red Web: The Struggle Between Russia's Digital Dictators and the New Online Revolutionaries (2015); The Compatriots: The Brutal and Chaotic History of Russia's Exiles, Émigrés, and Agents Abroad (2019);and Our Dear Friends in Moscow: The Inside Story of a Broken Generation (2025). 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

1991 ushered in a new epoch of hope as Russia marched toward democracy and prosperity on the ruins of the Soviet Union. In 2025 those hopes for a thriving, democratic Russia have not panned out. Irina Borogan and Andrei Soldatov lived it as journalists in Russia from the start of Putin's reign. Specialists in documenting Russia's secret services, they've reported many, many important stories over the past decades. Our Dear Friends in Moscow: The Inside Story of a Broken Generation (PublicAffairs, 2025) tells an intimate story of a group of friends in journalism whose view diverged against the backdrop of Putin's revanchist, authoritarian rule. Soldatov and Borogan narrate the personal, perplexing, and painful story of the friends and colleagues who assimilated Kremlin-aligned views as the authors themselves moved from opposition journalists to exiles under threat from the Putin's regime. This conversation scratches the surface of the book's riveting and important attempt to make sense of polarization and allegiances with weighty consequences. Andrei Soldatov is a Russian investigative journalist in exile, co-founder and editor of Agentura ru, a watchdog of the Russian secret services' activities. He has been covering security services and terrorism issues since 1999. Irina Borogan is a Russian investigative journalist in exile. Borogan reported on terrorist attacks in Russia, including hostage takings in Moscow and Beslan. In 1999 Borogan covered the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia, in 2006 she covered the Lebanon War and tensions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. She chronicled the Kremlin's campaign to gain control of civil society and strengthen the government's police services under the pretext of fighting extremism. Irina Borogan and Andrei Soldatov are currently fellows at King's College London and the Center for Europan Policy Analysis (CEPA). They are co-authors of four books: The New Nobility: The Restoration of Russia's Security State and the Enduring Legacy of the KGB (2010); The Red Web: The Struggle Between Russia's Digital Dictators and the New Online Revolutionaries (2015); The Compatriots: The Brutal and Chaotic History of Russia's Exiles, Émigrés, and Agents Abroad (2019);and Our Dear Friends in Moscow: The Inside Story of a Broken Generation (2025). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

During the waning days of the Cold War and the dawning of the internet, computer hacker Raven has been selling high technology secrets to the Soviet Union and eluding capture by the FBI. Recently expelled college student Mev Hayes unexpectedly lands a position at a top lab at MIT where she's encouraged to continue her controversial computer research. But when the search for Raven points her way, Mev finds that opportunity comes at a cost in a struggle for technological dominance.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/houseofmysteryradio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textIntroduction: In a time when protests have become a frequent part of our social landscape, understanding their origins and funding has never been more crucial. In this episode of Clarity from Chaos, host Dave Campbell welcomes Adam Swart, founder of Crowds On Demand, to explore the mechanics of protests and the influence of financial backing on public demonstrations.The Rise of Marxism and Its Impact on Society: Dave Campbell opens the discussion by highlighting the perceived rise of Marxism in America, particularly since the fall of the Soviet Union. He expresses concern over the implementation of social justice ideologies, such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), and the impact of cancel culture. Campbell argues that these movements are rewriting history and fostering division within society, which he believes contradicts the nation's foundational Judeo-Christian values.Adam Swart's Expertise in Organized Protests: Adam Swart shares his background as the founder of Crowds On Demand, a company specializing in organizing protests for various causes. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the funding and structure behind large-scale demonstrations. Swart introduces the Transparency in Political Demonstrations Act, a bipartisan initiative aimed at bringing clarity to the financial sources behind protests. This act seeks to ensure that while protests are a fundamental American right, their integrity remains intact by preventing foreign interference and violence.The Challenge of Funding and Violence: The conversation shifts to the complexities of funding protests, especially when foreign actors are involved. Swart explains that while peaceful protests are protected, foreign interference and violent actions are not. He stresses the need for law enforcement to delve deeper into the funding sources of protests, suggesting that understanding the financial layers can help identify and mitigate violence.The Role of NGOs and Political Agendas: Campbell raises concerns about the influence of NGOs and their funding mechanisms. Swart counters that while it may seem straightforward to halt NGO activities, doing so could lead to political targeting similar to what conservative groups experienced under the Biden administration. He advocates for a nonpartisan approach to ensure fairness and transparency in political demonstrations.The Importance of Accountability: Throughout their discussion, both Campbell and Swart emphasize the need for accountability in protest funding. Swart shares his experiences with the challenges of tracing financial backers, highlighting the need for a thorough investigation into who funds protest activities. He suggests that peeling back the layers of funding can deter potential financial backers from supporting violent protests.Conclusion: This insightful conversation sheds light on the intricate world of organized protests and the critical role funding plays in shaping public demonstrations. As we navigate the complexities of free speech and political expression, it is essential to ensure that our rights are protected while holding accountable those who seek to exploit these Support the show"Wherever you find yourself is exactly and precisely where God wills you to be" Support our show at the following: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2063276/support Follow us on X: @CFC30290 Follow us on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-3123766 Website: https://clarityfromchaospodcast.buzzsprout.com/ Website: https://clarityfromchaos.substack.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFk-DsClSJ6m0GDmAcA7AAg Thanks for listening to Clarity from Chaos

In 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite to orbit Earth. About the size of a beach ball, Sputnik sent out radio signals that could be heard around the world. Its launch shocked the United States and began the Space Race—a competition to explore space. This video tells the story of how Sputnik changed history, inspired new inventions, and led to humans traveling to space. It marked the moment when people realized our future could reach beyond the stars.

Last time we spoke about the Soviet-Japanese Border Conflict. The border between Soviet Manchuria and Japanese-occupied territories emerges not as a single line but as a mosaic of contested spaces, marks, and memories. A sequence of incidents, skirmishes along the Chaun and Tumen rivers, reconnaissance sorties, and the complex diplomacy of Moscow, Tokyo, and peripheral actors to trace how risk escalated from routine patrols to calibrated leverage. On the ground, terrain functioned as both obstacle and argument: ridges like Changkufeng Hill shaping sightlines, river valleys shaping decisions, and markers weathered by snow, wind, and drift. In command tents, officers translated terrain into doctrine: contingency plans, supply routes, and the precarious calculus of restraint versus escalation. Both nations sought to establish firmer defensive barriers against the other. Inevitably they were destined to clash, but how large that clash would become, nobody knew.   #176 The Changkufeng Incident Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. In the last episode we broke down a general history of the Soviet-Japanese Border Conflict and how it escalated significantly by 1938. Colonel Inada Masazum serving as chief of the 2nd Operations Section within the Operations Bureau in March of 1938 would play a significant role in this story. When the Japanese command's attention was drawn to the area of Changkufeng, consideration was given to the ownership and importance of the disputed high ground. Inada and his operations section turned to an appraisal of the geography. The officers had been impressed by the strategic importance of the Tumen, which served to cut off the hill country from North Korea. In the Changkufeng area, the river was a muddy 600 to 800 meters wide and three to five meters deep. Japanese engineers had described rowing across the stream as "rather difficult."  Russian roads on the left bank were very good, according to Japanese intelligence. Heavy vehicles moved easily; the Maanshan section comprised the Russians' main line of communications in the rear. To haul up troops and materiel, the Russians were obliged to use trucks and ships, for there were no railways apart from a four-kilometer line between the harbor and town of Novokievsk. Near Changkufeng, hardly any roadways were suitable for vehicular traffic. On the right, or Korean, bank of the Tumen, there were only three roads suitable for vehicular traffic, but even these routes became impassable after a day or two of rain. In the sector between Hill 52 to the south and Shachaofeng to the north, the most pronounced eminences were Chiangchunfeng and the humps of Changkufeng. Rocky peaks were characteristically shaped like inverted T's, which meant many dead angles against the crests. The gentle slopes would allow tanks to move but would restrict their speed, as would the ponds and marshes. In general, the terrain was treeless and afforded little cover against aircraft. Against ground observation or fire, corn fields and tall miscanthus grass could provide some shielding. Between Chiangchunfeng and the Tumen, which would have to serve as the main route of Japanese supply, the terrain was particularly sandy and hilly. This rendered foot movement difficult but would reduce the effectiveness of enemy bombs and shells. The high ground east of Khasan afforded bases for fire support directed against the Changkufeng region. Plains characterized the rest of the area on the Soviet side, but occasional streams and swamps could interfere with movement of tanks and trucks. The only towns or villages were Novokievsk, Posyet, Yangomudy, and Khansi. At Kozando there were a dozen houses; at Paksikori, a few. The right bank was farmed mainly by Koreans, whose scattered cottages might have some value for billeting but offered none for cover. On the left bank, the largest hamlets were Fangchuanting, with a population of 480 dwelling in 73 huts, and Yangkuanping, where there were 39 cottages. Shachaofeng was uninhabited. Japanese occupation of Changkufeng would enable observation of the plain stretching east from Posyet Bay, although intelligence made no mention of Soviet naval bases, submarine pens, or airstrips in the immediate area of Posyet, either in existence or being built in 1938. As Inada knew, the Japanese Navy judged that Posyet Bay might have another use, as a site for Japanese landing operations in the event of war. In Russian hands, the high ground would endanger the Korean railway. This line, which started from Najin in northeastern Korea, linked up with the vital system in Manchuria at the town of Tumen and provided a short cut, if not a lifeline, between Japan and the Kwantung Army and Manchuria from across the Sea of Japan. Even from relatively low Changkufeng, six or seven miles of track were exposed to Soviet observation between Hongui and Shikai stations. The port of Najin, with its fortress zone, lay 11 miles southwest; Unggi lay even nearer. It was not the danger of Japanese shelling of Vladivostok, at an incredible range of 80 miles that was at stake but the more realistic hypothesis of Russian shelling of the rail line, and Russian screening of the Soviet side of the border. Hills and questions were thought to have two sides. It was the consensus of Japanese that Changkufeng Hill's potential value to the Russians far outweighed its possible benefits to them, or at least that the Japanese had more to lose if the Russians took the high ground by the Tumen. Inada nurtured few illusions concerning the intrinsic value of the heights. Despite the fact that the high command always had good reasons for quiescence in the north, Inada believed that the latest border difficulty could not be overlooked. By mid-July 1938 Inada's thoughts crystallized. The Japanese would conduct a limited reconnaissance in force known as iryoku teisatsu in the strategic sense. Whereas, at the tactical schoolbook level, this might mean the dispatch of small forces into enemy territory to seek local combat intelligence, at the Imperial General Headquarters level the concept was far more sweeping. There would also be useful evidence of mobilization and other buildup procedures. The affair at Changkufeng was merely a welcome coincidence, something started by the Russians but liable to Japanese exploration. Inada had no intention of seizing territory, of becoming involved in a war of attrition at a remote and minor spot, or of provoking hostilities against the USSR. The Russians would comprehend the nature of the problem, too. If they were interested in interfering seriously with the Japanese, there were numberless better locations to cause trouble along the Manchurian front; those were the places to watch. The cramped Changkufeng sector, described as "narrow like a cat's brow," could too readily be pinched off from Hunchun to render it of strategic value to either side. The bog land to the north interfered with the use of armored forces, while artillery sited on the heights along the Tumen in Korea could as easily control the area as batteries emplaced east of the lake. It was Inada's professional opinion that the Russians could commit three or four infantry divisions there at most, with no mechanized corps—no heavy tanks, in particular. No decisive battle could be waged, although, once the Russians became involved, they might have to cling to the hill out of a sense of honor. The military action would be meaningless even if the Japanese let the Russians have the heights. For their part, the Japanese would ostensibly be fighting to secure the boundary and to hold Changkufeng peak, beyond which they would not move a step onto Soviet soil. There would be no pursuit operations. Troop commitment would be limited to about one division without tank support. Japanese Air Force intervention would be forbidden. Matters would be directed entirely by Imperial General Headquarters working through the Korea Army chain of command and carried out by the local forces. Calm, clear, and dispassionate overall estimates and instructions would be based on materials available only in Tokyo. The command would not allow the Kwantung Army to touch the affair. Inada foresaw that the Japanese government might also seek a settlement through diplomacy. Although border demarcation was desirable and should be sought, the command would not insist on it, nor would it demand permanent occupation of Changkufeng summit. As soon as reconnaissance objectives had been achieved, the local forces would be withdrawn. As Inada described it "In the process, we would have taught the Russians some respect and given them a lesson concerning their repeated, high-handed provocations and intrusions. If a show of force sufficed to facilitate the negotiations and cause the Russians to back down, so much the better; the affair would be over and my point proved." The instrument for carrying out Inada's strategic design appeared to be ideal, the 19th Division, strenuously trained and high-spirited. It could be expected to perform very well if unleashed within defined limits. Colonel Suetaka was just the commander to direct local operations. Since he had been pleading to fight in China, an operation at Changkufeng might prove to be an excellent "safety valve." His staff was full of experienced, fierce warriors eager for battle. Until recently, the Korea Army commanding general had wisely kept the aggressive division away from Changkufeng Hill, but now Imperial general headquarters had its own overriding ideas and needs. How could the Japanese ensure that any military action would remain limited if the Russians chose to respond with vigor? Naturally, one infantry division, without armor or air support, could not withstand all of the Soviet forces in the maritime province. Inada answered that the mission to be assigned the 19th Division was merely the recapture of Changkufeng crest. If the Japanese side had to break off the operation, evacuation would be effected voluntarily and resolutely on Imperial general headquarters responsibility, without considerations of "face." At worst, the Japanese might lose one division, but the affair would be terminated at the Tumen River without fail. "Even so, we ought to be able to prove our theory as well as demonstrate our true strength to the Russians." In case the Soviets opted for more than limited war, the Japanese were still not so overextended in China that they could not alter their strategic disposition of troops. Although the Kwantung Army's six divisions were outnumbered four to one and the Japanese were not desirous of a war at that moment, the first-class forces in Manchuria could make an excellent showing. In addition, the high command possessed armor, heavy artillery, fighters, and bombers, held in check in Manchuria and Korea, as well as reserves in the homeland. There was also the 104th Division, under tight Imperial general headquarters control, in strategic reserve in southern Manchuria. Inada recalled "How would the Russians react? That was the answer I sought. Victory in China depended on it." By mid-July, the high command, at Inada's urging, had worked out a plan titled, "Imperial General headqaurters Essentials for Dealing with the Changkufeng Incident." Tada's telegram of 14 July to Koiso described succinctly the just-decided policy: the central authorities concurred with the Korea Army's opinion regarding the Changkufeng affair, then in embryo. Considering that Changkufeng Hill posed a direct threat to the frontier of Korea, Imperial General headqaurters would immediately urge the foreign ministry to lodge a stern protest. Next day, Tojo sent a telegram stating the Japanese policy of employing diplomacy; whether the Russians should be evicted by force required cautious deliberation in case the USSR did not withdraw voluntarily. On the basis of the guidance received from Imperial General headqaurters, the Korea Army drew up its own plan, "Essentials for Local Direction of the Changkufeng Incident," on 15 July. Intelligence officer Tsuchiya Sakae was sent promptly to the front from Seoul. At the same time, military authorities allowed the press to release news that Soviet troops were constructing positions inside Manchurian territory in an "obvious provocation." The government of Manchukuo was demanding an immediate withdrawal. Even then, those Japanese most closely connected with the handling of the Changkufeng Incident were not in agreement that everybody at command level was as ardent a proponent of reconnaissance in force as Inada claimed to be. Some thought that most, if not all, of his subordinates, youthful and vigorous, were in favor of the notion; others denied the existence of such an idea. Inada remained clear-cut in his own assertions. Everything done by the local Soviet forces, he insisted, must have been effected with the permission of Moscow; it was customary for the USSR not to abandon what it had once started. The Japanese Army never really thought that the Soviet Union would withdraw just as the result of diplomatic approaches. Therefore, from the outset, preparations were made to deal the Russians one decisive blow. Inada had recommended his plan, with its clear restrictions, to his colleagues and superiors; the scheme, he says, was approved 14 July "all the way up the chain of command, through the Army general staff and the ministry of war, with unexpected ease." The only real opposition, Inada recalled, came from the navy, whose staff advised the army operations staff, in all sincerity, to give up the idea of strategic reconnaissance. Inada adhered to his opinion stubbornly. He never forgot the grave look on the face of Captain Kusaka, the UN operations section chief, as the latter gave in reluctantly. The navy view was that the Changkufeng affair typified the army's aggressive policies as opposed to relative passivity on the part of the navy. Like Kusaka, Japanese Navy interviewees shared the fear that Changkufeng might prove to be the most dangerous military confrontation ever to occur between the USSR and Japan. In view of navy objections, one wonders where Inada could have drawn support for his concept of reconnaissance in force. If one accepts the comments contained in a letter from a navy ministry captain, Takagi Sokichi, to Baron Harada Kumao at the beginning of August, in the army and in a portion of the navy there existed "shallow-minded fellows who are apt to take a firm stand in the blind belief that the USSR would not really rise against us, neglecting the fact that the Russians had foreseen our weak points." Takagi also had violent things to say about "white-livered" Gaimusho elements that were playing up to the army. Although Takagi's remarks, expressed in confidence, were sharp, cautious injunctions were being delivered by the high command to the new Korea Army commander, General Nakamura Kotaro, who was about to leave for Seoul to replace Koiso. Nakamura's attitude was crucial for the course and outcome of the Changkufeng Incident. More of a desk soldier than a warrior, he characteristic ally displayed a wariness that was reinforced by the guidance provided him. This personal quality assumes even greater significance if one believes that the Russians may have initiated the Changkufeng Incident by exploiting the special opportunities afforded them by the routine replacement of the Korea Army commander, the temporary absence from Moscow of Ambassador Shigemitsu Mamoru, and the geographical as well as subjective gap between the Kwantung and Korea armies that was exposed during the Lyushkov affair. At 10:00 on 15 July Nakamura was designated army commander by the Emperor at the palace. Soon afterward, he was briefed by Imperial General headquarters officers. Hashimoto, the operations bureau chief, recalled that when he saw Nakamura off on 17 July, Hashimoto stressed prudence, limitation of any military action, and diplomatic solution of the problem. The new commanding general, Inada asserted, promised full cooperation. There was no mention, at this level, of Inada's concept of reconnaissance in force. When Nakamura reached Seoul, he found an Imperial order from Tokyo dated 16 July awaiting him. This important document stipulated that he could concentrate units under his command in Korea near the border against the trespassing Soviet forces in the Changkufeng area. Resort to force, however, was dependent upon further orders. This message was followed by a wire from Kan'in, the Army general staff chief. The Imperial order, it was explained, had been designed to support diplomatic negotiations. Simultaneous approval was granted for concentrating forces to respond swiftly in case the situation deteriorated. As for implementation of the Imperial order, discretion should be exercised in line with the opinion expressed earlier by Korea Army Headquarters. Negotiations were to be conducted in Moscow and Harbin, the location of a Soviet consulate in Manchukuo. Meanwhile, the command was dispatching two officers for purposes of liaison: Lt. Colonel Arisue Yadoru in Operations and Major Kotani Etsuo a specialist in Soviet intelligence. Inada advised Arisue that, apart from liaison flights inside the frontiers, particular care should be exercised with regard to actions that might lead to air combat. Nevertheless, although Inada stated that the Imperial order called for "a sort of military demonstration," he admitted that it meant preparatory action for an attack. The Korea Army senior staff officer, Iwasaki, recalled hearing nothing about secret intentions. Nakamura briefed his staff about the need for restraint, especially during this key period of the Wuhan operation. Koiso had disposed of speculation that he had issued an order to concentrate the 19th Division before Nakamura arrived, although he and Nakamura did have the opportunity to confer in Seoul before he departed for Japan. The Imperial order of 16 July, in response to Koiso's inquiry received in Tokyo on 14 July, had arrived in Seoul addressed to Nakamura; thereupon, the Korea Army chief of staff, Kitano, had the message conveyed to the division. By 21 July Koiso was back in Tokyo where, the day afterward, he advised the war minister, Itagaki, "to act prudently with respect to the Changkufeng problem." Why did the high command dispatch two field-grade liaison officers to Korea from the outset of the Changkufeng Incident? The Korea Army lacked operations staff. Its commander had been allotted prime responsibility, within the chain of command, for defense of northeastern Korea. At the beginning, the highest-ranking staff officer at the front was a major. Since there were no fundamental differences of opinion between the command and the forces in Korea, it was proper to send experts from Tokyo to assist. Imperial General headqaurters would observe the situation carefully, devise measures on the basis of the overall view, and issue orders which the Korea Army would implement through ordinary channels. It had not been the type of incident which required the army commander to go to the front to direct. This was the Korea Army's first test, and political as well as diplomatic problems were involved that the army in the field should not or could not handle. If Tokyo had left decisions to the division and its regiments, the latter would have been held to account, which was not proper. Imperial General headquarters had to assume responsibility and reassure local commanders of its full support. Imaoka Yutaka explained that operational guidance by Imperial General headquarters and line operations conducted by the 19th Division formed the core of the affair; the Korea Army, placed between, was "shadowy." Koiso had not been enthusiastic; this set the mood among the staff. Nakamura, who arrived with a thorough comprehension of AGS thinking, was basically passive. The Korea Army staff, in general, included no "wild boars."    There was an urgent need to monitor developments. Not only was the Korea Army unfamiliar with handling this type of incident, but many hitches occurred. There had been no practice in emergency transmission of coded wires between the Korea Army and Tokyo. Now telegram after telegram had to be sent; most were deciphered incorrectly and many were not decoded at all. Another problem centered on the lack of knowledge in Tokyo about the situation on the spot, which only visual observation could rectify. As a result, the two Army general staff experts, Arisue and Kotani, arrived in Korea on 16 July. Kotani recalled that he was to collect intelligence and assist the local authorities. One of the first duties that he and Arisue performed was to disseminate the principle that use of force required a prior Imperial order. Also on 16 July, Japanese newspapers reported that the USSR was still concentrating troops, that the Manchukuoan government was watching intently, "decisive punitive measures" were being contemplated by the Japanese-Manchukuoan authorities, and there were signs of a worsening of the crisis. Despite good reasons for this gloomy appraisal, the Japanese press had not yet given the incident page-one treatment. More alarming news was being disseminated abroad. Domei, the official Japanese news agency, reported that the situation would probably become worse unless Soviet troops were withdrawn. The position of the Japanese government impressed foreign correspondents as unusually firm. Informants characterized the Changkufeng Incident as the most serious affair since the clash on the Amur River in 1937. Irked by the Korea Army's timidity and eager for first-hand information, the Kwantung Army dispatched two observers to the front: from Intelligence, Ogoshi Kenji, and from Operations, Tsuji Masanobu. If you listen to my pacific war week by week podcast or echoes of war, you know I highlight Tsuji Masanobu as one of the most evil Japanese officers of WW2. No other way to describe this guy, he was a shithead. In his memoirs, Tsuji asserted that he and Ogoshi climbed Changkufeng Hill, discerned Soviet soldiers digging across the peak in Manchurian territory, and concluded that "probably even Tokyo could not overlook such a clear-cut case of invasion." Although his account aligned with the general thrust, Ogoshi contended that Tsuji could not have accompanied him. According to sources with the 19th Division, when Koiso learned that Tsuji and Ogoshi were disparaging the Korea Army's ability to defend Changkufeng, he ordered "those spies" ousted. Ogoshi replied that the army staff was not angry, but Koiso did become furious and ordered Ogoshi "arrested for trespassing." Ogoshi surmised that Koiso's concern was that emotional outsiders such as Tsuji could provoke trouble, perhaps even war, if they visited Changkufeng. This view was widely shared. Inada stated that he made a practice of keeping away to maintain the degree of detachment and impartiality required of high command authorities. One sidelight to the "fraternal" visit to the Changkufeng area by observers from Hsinking was provided by Lt. Colonel Katakura Tadashi, chief of the Kwantung Army's 4th Section, which handled Manchukuo affairs, primarily political direction. When Katakura visited the Operations Section, Tsuji and Ogoshi told him that an intrusion had been confirmed and that the Kwantung Army staff was studying ways to evict the Soviets. Katakura consulted Maj. General Ishiwara Kanji, acting chief of staff, who was already in possession of the draft of an operations order calling for offensive preparations by the Kwantung Army against the Russians at Changkufeng. Katakura asked for reconsideration of the order. This was not a matter to be handled solely by the operations staff. Borders and international affairs were involved; hence the 4th Section, along with the Manchukuoan government, the Gaimusho, and other agencies, were concerned. Field observers were expressing exaggerated personal opinions based on having seen Soviet sentries on a hilltop. If the matter fell within the Korea Army's defensive prerogative, that army ought to handle it. Apparently the Kwantung Army commander and Ishiwara agreed with Katakura, for the draft order was not approved. The so-called private message dispatched by a Kwantung Army staff officer just before Koiso's departure may have been provoked by this rejection of direct participation by forces under Kwantung Army command. Staff officers in Tokyo believed that Hsinking could not see the forest for the trees. In the high command's view, the Kwantung Army's deliberate escalation of a negligible frontier incident undoubtedly stemmed from a failure to grasp the strategic requirements of national defense—pursuit of the campaign in China, the nurturance of Manchukuo, and the buildup of operational readiness for the ultimate solution of the Soviet problem. The high command felt obliged to remind the Kwantung Army that, in dealing with the Changkufeng Incident, the central authorities pressed for a Russian pullback through diplomacy. Consequently, the Korea Army had been instructed to be ready to concentrate troops near Changkufeng as a "background." Meanwhile, it remained the Imperial will that utmost prudence be exercised. The Kwantung Army commander accordingly issued cautious instructions to subordinate units, especially those on the eastern border. The high command's injunctions did not end the discontent and recrimination at the lower levels of Kwantung Army Headquarters, nor did they quiet the concern felt in Tokyo. A former war minister told Baron Harada repeatedly in late July that the Kwantung Army was "no good," while the superintendent of police added that the Kwantung Army was embarrassing Foreign Minister Ugaki. Nevertheless, the Kwantung Army did exert self-restraint. For its part, the Korea Army naïvely sought to achieve entente with an antagonist who considered the case nonnegotiable. First, the government of Manchukuo was asked to lodge a formal protest with the USSR. The commissioner for foreign affairs at Harbin phoned V. V. Kuznetzov, the acting consul, on the night of 14 July and saw him on the 18th. Basing its contentions on maps, the Haensing regime demanded Soviet withdrawal from Changkufeng. The Japanese government was lodging similar protests within the framework of Japanese-Manchukuoan joint defense agreements. On the spot, the situation inflamed. During the afternoon of 15 July, a Japanese military police patrol from Korea reconnoitered at the foot of Hill 52, southeast of Changkufeng. The party came under Soviet gunfire and was driven back, abandoning the body of Corp. Matsushima Shakuni. Japanese sources claimed that a Russian ambush had been set inside Manchuria. The Russian side insisted that it was the Soviet frontier that had been violated by thirty meters. Kuzma Grebennik, the colonel commanding the 59th BGU, which covered the Posyet sector, asserted that Matsushima's effects included a notebook containing reconnaissance results and a camera with film of Soviet-claimed terrain, particularly Changkufeng Hill. According to Maj. Gilfan Batarshin, a subordinate of Grebennik, two Russian border guards from Podgornaya opened fire when the Japanese fled after being challenged. Japanese protests to the USSR about the death of Matsushima and the taking of his body were added to the negotiations concerning the disputed border and the alleged trespassing. Charge Nishi Haruhiko lodged a vigorous complaint in Moscow on 15 July but was answered by a counterprotest. Ambassador Shigemitsu underwent an identical experience during a conversation with Foreign Commissar Maxim Litvinov on 20 July. Shigemitsu retorted that the murder tended to exacerbate the negotiations. In his memoirs, he stated that the killing of Matsushima provoked the local Japanese border garrison unit. The shooting occurred as the Soviet military buildup continued, according to Japanese sources. Mechanized units were reported moving in the direction of Kyonghun from Barabash and Posyet Bay. Biplanes were reconnoitering the Hunchun Valley, within Manchurian territory, from the afternoon of 16 July. To the local Japanese authorities, it seemed that the Russians were adopting a challenging attitude. Although the Japanese-Manchukuoan side remained willing to negotiate—that is, to take no forceful actions if the Russians would withdraw, the latter appeared not to share such an intention. The Soviets were not only misinterpreting the Hunchun treaty to their advantage but were encroaching beyond what they claimed to be the line; they "lacked sincerity." Decisive use of force might have been imperative to secure the Manchurian border, which was Japan's legal responsibility. As far north as Tungning on the eastern Manchurian frontier, two Soviet ground divisions and considerable numbers of tanks and aircraft were reported massed in full view. At Changkufeng, Russian soldiers fortified the crest. Mountain guns were now seen with muzzles pointed toward Manchuria, and Japanese intelligence estimated that Soviet troop strength near Changkufeng had grown to 120 or 130 by the evening of 18 July. As Sawamoto Rikichiro, an Imperial aide, noted in his diary, "It would seem that settlement of the affair had become increasingly difficult." Korea Army staff officer Tsuchiya sent two emissaries bearing the notice to the Soviet border. The pair, "blazing with patriotic ardor,"set out on 18 July, carrying a message in one hand and a white flag in the other. From Kyonghun came the report the next day that there had been an urgent, well-attended Soviet staff meeting at BGU Headquarters in Novokievsk all night, and that the Russian side had been discomfited by the Japanese request, which had been transmitted to higher authorities. Still, the emissaries did not return, while a stream of reports indicated a Soviet buildup along a dozen frontier sectors. Russian authorities had reportedly forced the natives to evacuate an area twenty miles behind their borders. From Japanese observation posts, Soviet convoys of men, guns, and horses could be sighted moving toward Novokievsk after being unloaded from transports originating at Vladivostok. Japanese Army Intelligence reported that on 18 July a regimental-size force had arrived at Novokievsk; artillery displacements forward were particularly visible by night east of Khasan. A confidential Gaimusho message indicated that Soviet truck movements between Posyet, Novokievsk, and the front had increased since the 20th. Russian intrusions, kidnappings, and sniping incidents were reported along the Manchurian borders, from Manchouli on the west to Suifenho on the east, between 18 and 25 July. Aircraft on daytime reconnaissance were detected as far as three miles inside Manchurian territory in the Hunchun area. Although the Japanese asserted that their forbearance was being tested, Izvestiya charged "Japanese militarists" with manufacturing an affair at Ussuri as well as at Changkufeng. The Japanese themselves received reports from the Changkufeng front that by 20 July the Soviets had 250 soldiers, armed with field pieces, trench mortars, howitzers, and light and heavy machine guns, on the southern slopes. The Russians were putting up tents capable of holding 40 men each; officers could be observed for the first time. On the evening of the 20th, the Soviets lobbed illuminating shells toward Manchurian territory. 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. Inada Masazum, studying maps and mud, saw Changkufeng Hill as a prize with peril, a test of nerve rather than a conquest. Tokyo's orders pulsed through Seoul and Harbin: guard, probe, and deter, but avoid full-scale war. Across the border, Soviet units pressed closer, lights and tents flickering on the hillside. The sea within sight whispered of strategy, diplomacy, and a warning: a single misstep could redraw Asia. And so the standoff waited, patient as winter.

In this episode of Crossing Faiths, John Pinna speaks with Bryan Grim from the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation about his influential research on global religious freedom. Grim recounts how his personal experiences living in the Muslim world, particularly during 9/11, led him to develop the groundbreaking framework that measures religious restrictions through two distinct lenses: government actions and social hostilities. He argues that this nuanced understanding is crucial for the workplace, asserting that accommodating and respecting employees' diverse faiths fosters a more productive and engaged environment, drawing a parallel between inclusive national policies and successful corporate cultures. The conversation explores the practical challenges of accommodating various religious practices, the importance of universal religious freedom for all faiths to ensure it for any, and the critical role of data in providing perspective, informing policy, and navigating the complexities of religious persecution beyond mere anecdotes. Dr. Bryan J. Grim is a globally recognized expert on the socio-economic impact of religious freedom. He is the Founding President of the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation (RFBF) and serves as the Global Chair of Dare to Overcome, an initiative that fosters mutual respect and engagement among diverse faith-and-belief groups in workplaces worldwide. With a Ph.D. in quantitative sociology from Pennsylvania State University, Dr. Grim has authored numerous academic articles and books. His pioneering work at the Pew Research Center led to the development of global indexes measuring Government Restrictions on Religion (GRI) and Social Hostilities Involving Religion (SHI), which are now key tools for monitoring religious freedom worldwide. Dr. Grim's research has shown that religion contributes approximately $1.2 trillion annually to the U.S. economy, surpassing the combined revenues of top tech companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google. His approach to religious freedom emphasizes building inclusive environments for people of all faiths and those without religious affiliation. He has lived and worked extensively across China, Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and the former USSR, where he helped establish the first Western-style business school in the Soviet Union. His global influence included advisory roles with the World Economic Forum, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, Notre Dame University Law School's Religious Liberty Initiative, Brandeis University's Chaplaincy Innovation Lab, and affiliations with Boston University and Baylor University. Dr. Grim is also known for organizing the Global Business & Intercultural Peace Awards, held in cities like Rio de Janeiro, Seoul, Tokyo, New Delhi, and Washington, D.C., with support from global leaders and organizations including the United Nations Global Compact and American Airlines. He and his wife, Julia Beth, are co-authors of Grims' New Fairy Tales of Love Overcoming Evil (https://grimsfairytales.com/), parents of four and grandparents of 18.

This episode features a great chat with James Baxenfield about how American football got started and is growing in the Baltic countries, especially Estonia.James explains that football first popped up in Estonia right after the Soviet Union broke up around 1989. It started very small—just informal games with whatever equipment people could find.Now, things are much more organized. Over the last couple of decades, American football has become a more structured sport, with a rising number of local amateur teams and leagues. This growth is largely thanks to dedicated people in the communities who have worked hard to build a football culture.James also talks about the Baltic League, which includes teams from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This league is really important for getting American football noticed in the region. The sport still struggles because other games are much more popular, but teams like the Tartu Titans and the Vilnius Iron Wolves show the competitive and friendly spirit of this developing football scene.Finally, the discussion gives a sneak peek at James Baxenfield's new podcast, 'Gridiron Baltic'. His show will dive deep into the history and current status of American football in the Baltics, sharing local stories and helping people understand the sport's unique journey in that part of the world. It's a great chance to learn about a cool, developing corner of football history.Join us at the Pigskin Dispatch website to see even more Positive football news! Don't forget to check out and subscribe to the Pigskin Dispatch YouTube channel for additional content and the regular Football History Minute Shorts.Miss our football by the day of the year podcasts, well don't, because they can still be found at the Pigskin Dispatch website. Takeaways:Football's popularity is surging in America and across the globe, including the Baltic region.The upcoming podcast, Gridiron Baltic, will explore American football's history in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.Local teams in Estonia are competing in the Baltic League, which showcases regional football talent.Flag football is gaining traction in Estonia, with new teams forming to promote the sport.The first American football games in Estonia occurred in 1989 after the Soviet Union's dissolution.The podcast aims to increase visibility for American football in the Baltic region, reflecting its growing popularity.

Today on America in the MorningHouse Plans Epstein Vote As MTG & Trump Feud The House is planning a vote tomorrow on forcing the Department of Justice to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, and last night, President Trump reversed course and called on House Republicans to vote in favor of the files being released.  This comes as Trump and one of his most fervent supporters, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, appear to be on the outs. Correspondent Rich Johnson reports.   ICE In Charlotte The Governor of North Carolina is encouraging residents to be peaceful and record anything they believe to be suspicious or inappropriate, as immigration agents crack down on illegal immigration in the Queen City, with the governor saying their actions are not making Charlotte safer. Correspondent Clayton Neville reports there were dozens of arrests on Sunday.  A Trump-Mamdani Summit President Trump says he's planning a meeting with New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.    Not Yet Business As Usual The government shutdown may be over, but there's still some flight delays for the FAA to iron out.  Correspondent Ed Donahue reports on a change in flight plans.   Trump To Host bin Salman The Trump administration is pulling out all the stops as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will meet with President Trump tomorrow at the White House.    Pasta Prices Could Rise Spaghetti fans could soon be paying twice the price for their favorite linguine dish after President Trump threatened 107 percent tariffs on Italian-made pasta.  The details from correspondent Donna Warder.     Trump's Venezuela Plans President Trump says he knows what the administration's next step surrounding Venezuela will be, but is not ready to make the plan public yet. Correspondent Clayton Neville reports this comes amid a heightened US military presence in the region.   Latest On Russia & Ukraine It took just under four years for the Soviet Union to fight its way over 11 hundred miles from Moscow to Berlin and join the US and allied forces to end World War II.  It's been over 3 and a half years since Russian forces crossed the border and invaded Ukraine, and so far they haven't come close to making the 400 mile journey to Kyiv.  The latest on the war between the Kremlin and Ukraine from correspondent Karen Chammas.    Tragedy In California In California, officials found a body they believe to be the missing 5-year-old girl who was swept into the ocean by a large wave at a Monterey County beach on Friday.    NJ Mass Shooting Police in Newark, New Jersey are trying to figure out why gunfire erupted on a street near a bus stop, leaving two people dead including a 10-year-old boy.  Sue Aller has the story.    Finally   Nobody ever said passing the bar exam to become a lawyer would be easy, and that's a statement that reality star Kim Kardashian certainly agrees with after she recently took the test.  Entertainment reporter Kevin Carr has details. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Paul Gregory describes his observations during the summer of 1962 while taking Russian lessons from Marina, noting Lee and Marina's poverty; Marina even lacked a baby carriage for infant June. Lee presented himself as an intellectual but was secretive about his desertion to the Soviet Union. Both Lee and Marina expressed admiration for President Kennedy, whose photo was on the only book they owned. At a dinner with the Dallas Russians, Lee was confronted by Anna Miller about deserting America for the Soviet Union, reacting with controlled rage that highlighted his discomfort. This encounter caused George Buha, the community leader, to decide the Russians must help Marina, whose isolation and Lee's abusiveness became apparent. Guest: Paul Gregory. 1963

Mandy is away at BravoCon but makes sure to record an episode first with her thoughts on RHOSLC and RHOP. But she also has two surprise guests - Ilya and Joyce, her dad and stepmom. They chat a bit about their Mediterranean cruise before Mandy asks her dad to share how his family was able to get out of the Soviet Union when the country made it difficult for Jews to emigrate. In honor of Mandy's dad, consider making a donation to HIAS, the refugee agency that resettled his family in the United States: https://hias.org Follow Mandy on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mandyslutsker/

fWotD Episode 3117: Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Sunday, 16 November 2025, is Black Widow (Natasha Romanova).Black Widow is a superhero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Created by editor Stan Lee, scripter Don Rico, and artist Don Heck, the character debuted as an enemy of Iron Man in Tales of Suspense #52 (1964). She reformed into a hero in The Avengers #30 (1966) and her most well-known design was introduced in The Amazing Spider-Man #86 (1970). Black Widow has been the main character in several comic titles since 1970, receiving her own Black Widow series in 1999. She also frequently appears as a supporting character in The Avengers and Daredevil.Natalia Alianovna "Natasha Romanoff" Romanova (Russian: Наталья Альяновна "Наташа" Романова) is introduced as a spy for the Soviet Union until she defects to the United States. She subsequently joins the intelligence agency S. H. I. E. L. D., partners with Daredevil, and encounters a rival Black Widow in Yelena Belova. Though she has no distinct superpowers, she was augmented in the Red Room, a Soviet training facility, to increase her strength and reduce her aging. She has training in combat and espionage, and wields bracelets that fire electric shocks and project wires she uses to traverse skyscrapers.Black Widow stories often explore her struggle to define her own identity as a spy and the trauma she endured from her life of training in the Red Room. Early stories emphasized her Soviet origin, portraying her superiors as evil and contrasting her with more noble American superheroes. Black Widow's status as a leading female character and femme fatale has influenced her portrayal, which was often contradictory as comics grappled with the conflict between traditional gender roles and second-wave feminism. The character is heavily sexualized both by artists and by the characters with whom she interacts.Black Widow has been adapted into a variety of other media, including film, animated series, and video games. A version of the character was portrayed by Scarlett Johansson in the Marvel Cinematic Universe from her first appearance in Iron Man 2 (2010) to her final one in Black Widow (2021). Johansson's portrayal brought increased attention to the character and influenced Black Widow's depiction in comics.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:31 UTC on Sunday, 16 November 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Bluesky at @wikioftheday.com.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Salli.

EPISODE 626 - Suzanne Parry - The Soviet Experience Through Historical Fiction, Pentagon Tour, Iron Maiden of StockholmRaised in a quiet rural corner of western New York State, I didn't always want to be a writer. I was, however, always surrounded by books. Bookcases in every room. Entire walls of them. My mother was an avid reader and regular trips to the library were part of my childhood. My stepfather was a creative writing professor and words floated through the rooms and into the nooks and crannies of that pre-Civil War era farmhouse. Books weren't my escape so much as they were part of my daily diet. At twenty I made a list of things I wanted to accomplish and “write a book” was on it. That list included both measurable things like “learn five foreign languages” and “complete a significant athletic achievement” and less quantifiable items like “make the world a better place.” During the Cold War of my high school and college years, I very much wanted to help reduce the possibility of conflict between the US and the USSR.I earned a bachelor's degree at Purdue University, and then continued my Russian studies at the Pushkin Russian Language Institute in Moscow. I studied Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, received a Master's in 1982 and started a career in public service with the US Department of Defense. My work in the Office of the Secretary of Defense focused on European security issues between NATO, Warsaw Pact, and neutral nations. While at the Pentagon I helped negotiate the Conference on Disarmament in Europe, the first security agreement of the Gorbachev era. At the Stockholm talks as we often called the CDE, a number of my European colleagues jokingly called me the “Iron Maiden of Stockholm” in a not altogether flattering reference to British PM Margaret Thatcher, the original tough-as-nails female negotiator. The many months I spent crafting an agreement with diplomats from thirty-five nations, sitting at a table alongside NATO colleagues and opposite Soviet and Warsaw Pact counterparts, was my great honor.After this heady time, I put most of my energy into raising a large family (requiring its own negotiating skills). Funny enough, having a family was not on that list and yet today I would say without hesitation that the most impactful (and most difficult) thing I've ever done is raise four children. I lived in several countries, including the former Soviet Union, Belgium, Sweden, Singapore, and Germany. Throughout adulthood I've been a committed runner. I've completed dozens of marathons in more than twenty countries, including the fifty-six-mile Comrades Marathon in South Africa. I eventually landed in the wonderful and welcoming city of Portland, Oregon as a single parent. There, I coached high school cross country and track at a large public high school before deciding it wasn't too late to dust off that forty-year-old list and write a book.I now divide my time between Portland and Washington, DC, but also travel for fun, for research, and best of all, to visit my children and grandchildren.https://suzanneparrywrites.com/Support the show___https://livingthenextchapter.com/podcast produced by: https://truemediasolutions.ca/Coffee Refills are always appreciated, refill Dave's cup here, and thanks!https://buymeacoffee.com/truemediaca

➡️ Watch the full interview ad-free, join a community of geopolitics enthusiasts and gain access to exclusive content on PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingGeopolitics➡️ Sign up to my free geopolitics newsletter: https://stationzero.substack.com/This is a conversation with Francis Fukuyama, a professor and research fellow at Stanford and one of the most famous and influential scholars of political science and international relations of our time. Although he has decades of scholarship behind him, he is by far most well known for one book, titled the “End of History and the Last Man” which is both highly influential and highly misunderstood and in which he argued that following the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, humanity has reached the final stage of human government in the form of liberal democracy. We talk about what the argument of the book actually was, why it is so often misunderstood,  and why the End of History did not happen. About why history seems to have taken a turn backwards and why we are witnessing democratic backsliding and return of large scale wars and conflicts, why democracies everywhere seem to be going through major crises and how to fix that, or what - if the history is not ending - is ahead of us now. And what still gives him hope that liberal democracy is not going anywhere just yet.

John discusses the many revelations buried in the 20,000 pages of email and text messages from Jeffrey Epstein's estate. Among the most notable were Epstein's apparent role as advisor and confidant to Trump officials and Russian state officials, simultaneously. Then, he interviews political analyst, pundit, and writer - Lincoln Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell works on democracy and governance-related issues in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. He also works with businesses and NGOs globally, particularly in the former Soviet Union. In addition, he worked for years as a political consultant advising and managing domestic political campaigns.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textIn today's episode, I'm chatting with Marina Rubin, author of Knockout Beauty and Other Afflictions. Born in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, Marina immigrated to the United States in 1989 and has since published work in more than eighty magazines and anthologies. She serves as an associate editor of Mudfish, and her acclaimed short story collection earned an Honorable Mention for the 2020 Miami Book Fair Emerging Writer Fellowship. One of its centerpiece stories, Man in a Fedora, was even adapted for the Nightshift Radio Storyteller Series - bringing Marina's words to life through the voices of eleven actors. She lives in Brooklyn, NY.Key Highlights:The themes behind Knockout Beauty and Other Afflictions - lust, longing, family, and unexpected friendships.How Marina balances inspiration with discipline in her creative process.Growing up in the former Soviet Union and the cultural importance of being well-read.Finding time to read and write amidst daily life, including sneaking in reading during her commute.What she's learned about writing, publishing, and persistence along the way.Her book flight features short story collections.Marina reminds us that if you want to write great literature, you must first read great literature, a lesson that resonates with readers and writers alike.Connect with Marina Rubin:FacebookInstagramBuy Marina's books: Stealing CherriesKnockout Beauty and Other AfflictionsBooks and authors mentioned:Alina Adams episodeHonoré de Balzac booksAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandBook FlightThis is How You Lose Her by Junot DiazNo One Belongs Here More than You by Miranda JulySelected Stories by Guy de Maupassant✨ Find Your Next Great Read! We just hit 175 episodes of Bookish Flights, and to celebrate, I created the Bookish Flights Roadmap — a guide to all 175 podcast episodes, sorted by genre to help you find your next great read faster.Explore it here → www.bookishflights.com/read/roadmapSupport the showBe sure to join the Bookish Flights community on social media. Happy listening! Instagram Facebook Website

Season 6: Episode 10 --The UP Notable Book Club presents Patricia Graham, whose husband Loren R. Graham speaking about her late husband's book, "A Face in the Rock: The Tale of a Grand Island Chippewa." The Crystal Falls Community District Library in partnership with the U.P. Publishers & Authors Association (UPPAA) presents author events with winners of the UP Notable Book List. Make sure to like and subscribe so you don't miss any future UP Notable Book Club speakers! For more information please visit the links below www.UPPAA.org www.UPNotable.com www.amazon.com/Face-Rock-Grand-Island-Chippewa/dp/0520215672 LOREN R. GRAHAM was a distinguished American historian of science whose research illuminated the intricate relationships among science, technology, philosophy, and society—particularly within Russia and the Soviet Union. As a professor emeritus at both MIT and Harvard University, he was widely admired for his deep understanding of how cultural and political contexts shaped scientific ideas and institutions. Over his long and influential career, Graham authored numerous acclaimed books, including Science in Russia and the Soviet Union, Lysenko's Ghost, and Lonely Ideas, each exploring the ethical and social dimensions of scientific progress. His work bridged disciplines and continents, earning him international recognition as one of the foremost scholars of the history of science and the moral responsibilities of scientific inquiry. cover of the book Eight miles long and four miles wide, Grand Island lies off the south shore of Lake Superior. It was once home to a sizable community of Chippewa Indians who lived in harmony with the land and with each other. Their tragic demise began early in the nineteenth century when their fellow tribesmen from the mainland goaded them into waging war against rival Sioux. The war party was decimated; only one young brave, Powers of the Air, lived to tell the story that celebrated the heroism of his band and formed the basis of the legend that survives today. Powers of the Air lived to witness the desecration of Grand Island by the fur and logging industries, the Christianization of the tribe, and the near total loss of the Chippewa language, history, and culture. Graham charts the plight of the Chippewa as white culture steadily encroaches, forcing the native people off the island and dispersing their community on the mainland. The story ends with happier events of the past two decades, including the protection of Grand Island within the National Forest system, and the resurgence of Chippewa culture.

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. US bureau chief Jacob Magid joins host Amanda Borschel-Dan for today's episode. President Isaac Herzog announced Wednesday that US President Donald Trump had written him to ask him to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently standing trial on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. Magid brings other instances in which the US president has pushed for the end of Netanyahu's trial and describes the contents of this new “Free Bibi” letter. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday said “there’s some concern” about events in the West Bank undermining efforts to maintain the ceasefire in Gaza, in his first remarks on the latest spate of settler violence. This comes after a week in which dozens of Israelis launched a large-scale arson attack on Palestinians in the West Bank, targeting factories and farmland between the major cities of Nablus and Tulkarem. Magid reports on Rubio's statements, gives the context for them, and explains how they mark a departure for the Trump administration. Early this week, Magid exclusively reported that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas fired his finance minister for allowing payments to Palestinian security prisoners through an old mechanism -- often called “pay-to-slay.” These stipends are awarded to the prisoners or their families, giving them monthly salaries based on the length of their sentence, which correlates to the severity of the crimes. We hear why these payments raise such red flags for Israelis and Americans. Syria’s leader Ahmed al-Sharaa visited the White House on Monday and made a media splash as the former terrorist was shot shooting hoops and enjoying Trump's branded cologne. In an interview with The Washington Post, al-Sharaa claimed the US president supports his insistence on a complete Israeli withdrawal from Syrian territory as a condition for a comprehensive security deal between the long-warring neighboring countries. Magid weighs in. US President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the Central Asian, Muslim-majority country of Kazakhstan will be the first country to join the Abraham Accords in his second term. Since the nation established diplomatic relations with the Jewish state in 1992, shortly after it broke away from the Soviet Union, what does either country gain by this step? Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: Trump writes to Herzog asking him to pardon Netanyahu amid ‘unjustified’ trial What Matters Now to Haviv Rettig Gur: The case for pardoning Netanyahu Rubio says ‘there’s some concern’ West Bank violence could undermine Gaza ceasefire France says it will help draft constitution for Palestinian state as Abbas visits Paris Abbas fires his finance minister over illicit payments to Palestinian prisoners — sources Sharaa says Trump backs demand for Israel to withdraw forces from Syrian territory Kazakhstan, which already has relations with Israel, to join Abraham Accords Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by Pod-Waves. IMAGE: President Donald Trump walks with Israel's President Isaac Herzog, left, and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion International Airport, October 13, 2025, near Tel Aviv. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 1989, Boris Yeltsin walked into a Houston supermarket — and walked out ready to end an empire. What he saw in Texas that day would shake the foundations of the Soviet Union. * On the Very Special Episodes podcast, we tell one incredible story each week. Follow us down a different rabbit hole every Wednesday. Hosted by Dana Schwartz, Zaron Burnett, and Jason EnglishWritten by Dave RoosSenior Producer is Josh FisherEditing and Sound Design by Jonathan WashingtonAdditional Editing by Mary DooeMixing and Mastering by Josh FisherResearch and Fact-Checking by Dave Roos and Austin ThompsonVoice Actor is Tom AntonellisOriginal Music by Elise McCoyShow Logo by Lucy QuintanillaSocial Clips by Yarberry MediaExecutive Producer is Jason English Special thanks to composer Evan Mack for letting us play a clip of “Make Your Move,” from his original opera Yeltsin in Texas. Learn more at evanmack.com. And thanks to Yelena Biberman for sharing her story. Check out her excellent podcast How to Kill a Superpower. We've got a mailbag episode coming later this month. Got a question for Dana, Zaron, or Jason? Email us at veryspecialepisodes@gmail.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As Nazi Germany took the offensive against Poland and the second World War began in Europe, Japan chose to continue its path of closely aligning with fascist western powers in hopes of obtaining powerful allies whom they believed would win this latest global conflict.Support the show My latest novel, "Califia's Crusade," is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Apple Books, Bookshop.org, and many other online platforms!

We've done shows before on how contemporary America resembles late-stage Soviet society. But none quite as intriguing as with the Russian-born, US-based journalist Mikhail Zygar. In The Dark Side of the Earth, his new history of the Soviet Union's demise, Zygar underlines the moral exhaustion of its citizens. People no longer believed in anything, he reports on the collapse of this vast Euro-Asian empire. And that's the analogy Zygar makes with contemporary America which, he suggests, is equally exhausted. From the Soviet Union to the United States, a descent into a morally bankrupt nihilism defines the end of empire. Zygar even identifies the idealistic Obama with Gorbachev and the pugnacious Trump with Yeltsin, implying that a self-styled Putin-like “savior” lurks in the dark shadow of the American future. 1. Putin's Russia is worse than the Soviet Union The Soviet Union had dozens of political prisoners in the 1970s; Putin's Russia has thousands. Putin threatens the West with nuclear weapons far more aggressively than Soviet leaders ever did. What we thought was a victory over totalitarianism proved short-lived—Putin has built something more oppressive than what collapsed.2. The 1991 coup failed because of one woman History turns on ordinary people, not just great men. Emma Yazov, wife of the Soviet Defense Minister, spent three days crying in her husband's office, demanding he withdraw tanks from Moscow and resign from the junta. On the third day, he did. Her belief in democracy defeated the KGB and the Soviet military.3. Soviet citizens stopped believing after 1968 The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia killed whatever faith remained in communism. Afterward, Soviet people became perhaps the most cynical on earth, practicing “internal immigration”—pretending to participate in official life while living secret, clandestine private lives. When no one believes in an empire's ideology, collapse becomes inevitable.4. Solzhenitsyn's ideas shaped both Putin and the American New Right The author of The Gulag Archipelago evolved from Soviet dissident to fierce critic of liberal democracy. He wanted to preserve the Soviet empire by replacing communist ideology with Orthodox Christianity—precisely what Putin is attempting now. His attacks on Western liberalism's “weakness” and “woke culture” have found new audiences among American conservatives.5. Dick Cheney's approach to Soviet collapse enabled Putin George H.W. Bush and James Baker believed preserving a democratic Soviet Union would create a reliable partner. Dick Cheney disagreed, preferring “15 little dictatorships instead of one mighty Soviet Union.” Cheney's view prevailed. Without a Marshall Plan for post-Soviet states, Russian nationalism flourished, and Putin portrayed the collapse as Western conspiracy—the foundation of his power today.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

In November 1945, the first major war crimes trial in history opened in the German city of Nuremberg. Senior Nazis who had committed atrocities during World War Two were prosecuted by the victorious Allied powers of Britain, the USA, France and the Soviet Union. In 2014, Louise Hidalgo spoke to Benjamin Ferencz, who helped unearth evidence of mass murder by the Nazi mobile death squads and prosecuted them in Nuremberg. 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 the death of Adolf Hitler, the first spacewalk and the making of the movie Jaws, to celebrity tortoise Lonesome George, the Kobe earthquake and the invention of superglue. We look at the lives of some of the most famous leaders, artists, scientists and personalities in history, including: Eva Peron – Argentina's Evita; President Ronald Reagan and his famous ‘tear down this wall' speech; Thomas Keneally on why he wrote Schindler's List; and Jacques Derrida, France's ‘rock star' philosopher. You can learn all about fascinating and surprising stories, such as the civil rights swimming protest; the disastrous D-Day rehearsal; and the death of one of the world's oldest languages.(Photo: The defendants in the Nuremberg trials. Credit: US National Archives/via Reuters)

In 1989, Boris Yeltsin walked into a Houston supermarket — and walked out ready to end an empire. What he saw in Texas that day would shake the foundations of the Soviet Union. * On the Very Special Episodes podcast, we tell one incredible story each week. Follow us down a different rabbit hole every Wednesday. Hosted by Dana Schwartz, Zaron Burnett, and Jason EnglishWritten by Dave RoosSenior Producer is Josh FisherEditing and Sound Design by Jonathan WashingtonAdditional Editing by Mary DooeMixing and Mastering by Josh FisherResearch and Fact-Checking by Dave Roos and Austin ThompsonVoice Actor is Tom AntonellisOriginal Music by Elise McCoyShow Logo by Lucy QuintanillaSocial Clips by Yarberry MediaExecutive Producer is Jason English Special thanks to composer Evan Mack for letting us play a clip of “Make Your Move,” from his original opera Yeltsin in Texas. Learn more at evanmack.com. We've got a mailbag episode coming later this month. Got a question for Dana, Zaron, or Jason? Email us at veryspecialepisodes@gmail.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 1989, Boris Yeltsin walked into a Houston supermarket — and walked out ready to end an empire. What he saw in Texas that day would shake the foundations of the Soviet Union. * On the Very Special Episodes podcast, we tell one incredible story each week. Follow us down a different rabbit hole every Wednesday. Hosted by Dana Schwartz, Zaron Burnett, and Jason EnglishWritten by Dave RoosSenior Producer is Josh FisherEditing and Sound Design by Jonathan WashingtonAdditional Editing by Mary DooeMixing and Mastering by Josh FisherResearch and Fact-Checking by Dave Roos and Austin ThompsonVoice Actor is Tom AntonellisOriginal Music by Elise McCoyShow Logo by Lucy QuintanillaSocial Clips by Yarberry MediaExecutive Producer is Jason English Special thanks to composer Evan Mack for letting us play a clip of “Make Your Move,” from his original opera Yeltsin in Texas. Learn more at evanmack.com. And thanks to Yelena Biberman for sharing her story. Check out her excellent podcast How to Kill a Superpower. We've got a mailbag episode coming later this month. Got a question for Dana, Zaron, or Jason? Email us at veryspecialepisodes@gmail.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's a fun, hilarious, and lightning-fast Rapid Fire News hour with Joe Pags — packed with stories, laughs, and plenty of opinion. Pags reacts to SCOTUS refusing to hear a same-sex marriage appeal, breaks down why the First Amendment exists for a reason, and weighs in on Zorhan's win and what he calls the start of a “Soviet Union-style NYC” under the Mamdani era. Plus — Governor Hochul vs. Mayor Mamdani heats up, and President Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Ken Chesebro, and dozens more in a stunning political move. Then, news commentator Kay Hill joins the show to tackle POTUS' controversial idea of a 50-year mortgage plan — a proposal Pags calls “a terrible idea” that could leave Americans never actually owning anything. It's a rapid, funny, and fiery news hour loaded with stories you can't miss and commentary you won't hear anywhere else. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we are joined by Jason Christian of Cold War Cinema to talk about 1984's propaganda vehicle, "Red Dawn." Directed by John Milius, the film stars Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, Lea Thompson, Jennifer Grey and C. Thomas Howell as teenagers engaging in a guerilla war against the completely improbable and nonsensical invasion of the United States by the combined forces of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Nicaragua. We discuss the paradox of the Soviet Union in cinema as the most dangerous evil in the world while simultaneously being incredibly stupid, how that is a more accurate representation of the US in reality, Milius's reputation as a right wing crank, the deep ties between US cinema and anti communist propaganda, and ask Jason why he made us watch this absolute dog's dinner of a movie. Cold War Cinema:https://coldwarcinema/https://x.com/Cold_War_Cinemahttps://x.com/JasonAChristianhttps://jasonchristianwrites.com/Left of the Projector Linkshttps://boxd.it/5T9O1https://leftoftheprojectorpod.threadless.com/https://www.instagram.com/the_red_gobbo/https://www.instagram.com/millennialmarxist1/https://leftoftheprojector.com

To what extent does the course of history turn on the force of individual personalities? It's a question that looms large when examining the unlikely alliance forged between Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union that ultimately triumphed over the Axis powers in the Second World War. Danny Bird speaks with author Tim Bouverie to explore the complex, often uneasy rapport between Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt and Josef Stalin. Tim delves into the secrets, suspicions and towering ambitions that defined this remarkable chapter in wartime diplomacy, revealing how the fragile unity among these three leaders not only shaped the path to victory but also laid the uneasy foundations of the postwar world order. (Ad) Tim Bouverie is the author of Allies at War: The Politics of Defeating Hitler (Bodley Head, 2025). Buy it now from Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Allies-War-Struggles-Between-Allied/dp/0593138368/?tag=bbchistory045-21&ascsubtag=historyextra-social-histboty. The HistoryExtra podcast is produced by the team behind BBC History Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last time we spoke about the Changsha fire. Chiang Kai-shek faced a brutal choice: defend Wuhan to the last man or flood the land to slow the invaders. He chose both, pushing rivers and rallying a fractured army as Japanese forces pressed along the Yangtze. Fortresses at Madang held long, but the cost was high—troops lost, civilians displaced, a city's heart burning in the night. Wuhan fell after months of brutal fighting, yet the battle did not break China's will. Mao Zedong urged strategy over martyrdom, preferring to drain the enemy and buy time for a broader struggle. The Japanese, though victorious tactically, found their strength ebbing, resource strains, supply gaps, and a war that felt endless. In the wake of Wuhan, Changsha stood next in the Japanese crosshairs, its evacuation and a devastating fire leaving ash and memory in its wake. Behind these prices, political currents swirled. Wang Jingwei defected again, seeking power beyond Chiang's grasp, while Chongqing rose as a western bastion of resistance. The war hardened into a protracted stalemate, turning Japan from an aggressive assailant into a wary occupier, and leaving China to endure, persist, and fight on.   #175  The Soviet-Japanese Border Conflicts Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. So based on the title of this one, you probably can see we are taking a bit of a detour. For quite some time we have focused on the Japanese campaigns into China proper 1937-1938. Now the way the second sino-japanese war is traditionally broken down is in phases. 1937-1938, 1939-1942 and 1942-1945. However there is actually even more going on in China aside from the war with Japan. In Xinjiang province a large full blown Islamic revolution breaks out in 1937. We will be covering that story at a later date, but another significant event is escalating border skirmishes in Manchukuo. Now these border skirmishes had been raging ever since the USSR consolidated its hold over the far east. We talked about some of those skirmishes prior to the Sino-Soviet war in 1929. However when Japan created the puppet government of Manchukuo, this was a significant escalation in tensions with the reds. Today we are going to talk about the escalating border conflicts between the Soviets and Japan. A tongue of poorly demarcated land extends southeast from Hunchun, hugging the east bank of the Tumen River between Lake Khasan to the east and Korea to the west. Within this tongue stands Changkufeng Hill, one of a long chain of highlands sweeping from upstream along the rivers and moors toward the sea. The twin-peaked hill sits at the confluence area several miles northwest of the point where Manchuria, Korea, and the Russian Far East meet. The hill's shape reminded Koreans of their changgo, which is a long snare drum constricted at the center and tapped with the hands at each end. When the Manchus came to the Tumen, they rendered the phonetic sounds into three ideographic characters meaning "taut drum peaks" or Chang-ku-feng. The Japanese admired the imagery and preserved the Chinese readings, which they pronounce Cho-ko-ho. From their eastern vantage, the Russians called it Zaozernaya, "hill behind the lake." Soviet troops referred to it as a sugar-loaf hill. For many years, natives and a handful of officials in the region cultivated a relaxed attitude toward borders and sovereignty. Even after the Japanese seized Manchuria in 1931, the issue did not immediately come to a head. With the expansion of Manchukuo and the Soviet Far East under Stalin's Five-Year plans, both sides began to attend more closely to frontier delimitation. Whenever either party acted aggressively, force majeure was invoked to justify the unexpected and disruptive events recognized in international law. Most often, these incidents erupted along the eastern Manchurian borders with the USSR or along the 350-mile frontier south of Lake Khanka, each skirmish carrying the seeds of all-out warfare. Now we need to talk a little bit about border history. The borders in question essentially dated to pacts concluded by the Qing dynasty and the Tsardom. Between the first Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689 and the Mukden Agreement of 1924, there were over a dozen accords governing the borders. Relevant to Changkufeng were the basic 15-article Convention of Peking, supplementing the Tientsin Treaties of November 1860, some maps made in 1861, and the eight-article Hunchun Border Protocol of 1886. By the 1860 treaty, the Qing ceded to Tsarist Russia the entire maritime province of Siberia, but the meaning of "lands south of Lake Khanka" remained rather vague. Consequently, a further border agreement was negotiated in June 1861 known as "the Lake Khanka Border Pact", by which demarcations were drawn on maps and eight wooden markers erected. The border was to run from Khanka along ridgelines between the Hunchun River and the sea, past Suifenho and Tungning, terminating about 6 miles from the mouth of the Tumen. Then a Russo-Chinese commission established in 1886 drew up the Hunchun Border Pact, proposing new or modified markers along the 1860–1861 lines and arranging a Russian resurvey. However, for the Japanese, in 1938, the Chinese or Manchu texts of the 1886 Hunchun agreement were considered controlling. The Soviets argued the border ran along every summit west of Khasan, thereby granting them jurisdiction over at least the eastern slopes of all elevations, including Changkufeng and Shachaofeng.  Since the Qing dynasty and the house of Romanov were already defunct, the new sovereignties publicly appealed to opposing texts, and the Soviet side would not concede that the Russian-language version had never been deemed binding by the Qing commissioners. Yet, even in 1938, the Japanese knew that only the Chinese text had survived or could be located.    Now both the Chinese and Russian military maps generally drew the frontier along the watershed east of Khasan; this aligned with the 1861 readings based on the Khanka agreement. The Chinese Republican Army conducted new surveys sometime between 1915 and 1920. The latest Chinese military map of the Changkufeng area drew the border considerably closer to the old "red line" of 1886, running west of Khasan but near the shore rather than traversing the highland crests. None of the military delimitations of the border was sanctified by an official agreement. Hence, the Hunchun Protocol, whether well known or not, invaluable or worthless, remained the only government-to-government pact dealing with the frontiers.  Before we jump into it, how about a little summary of what became known as the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts. The first major conflict would obviously be the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. Following years of conflict between the Russian Empire and Japan culminating in the costly Battle of Tsushima, Tsar Nicholas II's government sought peace, recognizing Japan's claims to Korea and agreeing to evacuate Manchuria.  From 1918 to 1920, the Imperial Japanese Army, under Emperor Taishō after the death of Meiji, assisted the White Army and Alexander Kerensky against the Bolshevik Red Army. They also aided the Czechoslovak Legion in Siberia to facilitate its return to Europe after an Austrian-Hungarian armoured train purportedly went astray. By 1920, with Austria-Hungary dissolved and Czechoslovakia established two years earlier, the Czechoslovak Legion reached Europe. Japan withdrew from the Russian Revolution and the Civil War in 1922. Following Japan's 1919-1920 occupations and the Soviet intervention in Mongolia in 1921, the Republic of China also withdrew from Outer Mongolia in 1921. In 1922, after capturing Vladivostok in 1918 to halt Bolshevik advances, Japanese forces retreated to Japan as Bolshevik power grew and the postwar fatigue among combatants increased. After Hirohito's invasion of Manchuria in 1931–1932, following Taishō's death in 1926, border disputes between Manchukuo, the Mongolian People's Republic, and the Soviet Union increased. Many clashes stemmed from poorly defined borders, though some involved espionage. Between 1932 and 1934, the Imperial Japanese Army reported 152 border disputes, largely tied to Soviet intelligence activity in Manchuria, while the Soviets accused Japan of 15 border violations, six air intrusions, and 20 cases of "spy smuggling" in 1933 alone. Numerous additional violations followed in the ensuing years. By the mid-1930s, Soviet-Japanese diplomacy and trust had deteriorated further, with the Japanese being openly labeled "fascist enemies" at the Seventh Comintern Congress in July 1935. Beginning in 1935, conflicts significantly escalated. On 8 January 1935, the first armed clash, known as the Halhamiao incident, took place on the border between Mongolia and Manchukuo. Several dozen cavalrymen of the Mongolian People's Army crossed into Manchuria near disputed fishing grounds and engaged an 11‑man Manchukuo Imperial Army patrol near the Buddhist temple at Halhamiao, led by a Japanese military advisor. The Manchukuo Army sustained 6 wounded and 2 dead, including the Japanese officer; the Mongols suffered no casualties and withdrew after the Japanese sent a punitive expedition to reclaim the area. Two motorized cavalry companies, a machine‑gun company, and a tankette platoon occupied the position for three weeks without resistance. In June 1935, the first direct exchange of fire between the Japanese and Soviets occurred when an 11‑man Japanese patrol west of Lake Khanka was attacked by six Soviet horsemen, reportedly inside Manchukuo territory. In the firefight, one Soviet soldier was killed and two horses were captured. The Japanese requested a joint investigation, but the Soviets rejected the proposal. In October 1935, nine Japanese and 32 Manchukuoan border guards were establishing a post about 20 kilometers north of Suifenho when they were attacked by 50 Soviet soldiers. The Soviets opened fire with rifles and five heavy machine guns. Two Japanese and four Manchukuoan soldiers were killed, and another five were wounded. The Manchukuoan foreign affairs representative lodged a verbal protest with the Soviet consul at Suifenho. The Kwantung Army of Japan also sent an intelligence officer to investigate the clash. On 19 December 1935, a Manchukuoan unit reconnoitering southwest of Buir Lake clashed with a Mongolian party, reportedly capturing 10 soldiers. Five days later, 60 truck‑borne Mongolian troops assaulted the Manchukuoans and were repulsed, at the cost of three Manchukuoan dead. On the same day, at Brunders, Mongolian forces attempted three times to drive out Manchukuoan outposts, and again at night, but all attempts failed. Further small attempts occurred in January, with Mongolians using airplanes for reconnaissance. The arrival of a small Japanese force in three trucks helped foil these attempts; casualties occurred on both sides, though Mongolian casualties are unknown aside from 10 prisoners taken. In February 1936, Lieutenant-Colonel Sugimoto Yasuo was ordered to form a detachment from the 14th Cavalry Regiment to "drive the Outer Mongol intruders from the Olankhuduk region," a directive attributed to Lieutenant-General Kasai Heijuro. Sugimoto's detachment included cavalry guns, heavy machine guns, and tankettes. They faced a force of about 140 Mongolians equipped with heavy machine guns and light artillery. On February 12, Sugimoto's men drove the Mongolians south, at the cost of eight Japanese killed, four wounded, and one tankette destroyed. The Japanese began to withdraw, but were attacked by 5–6 Mongolian armored cars and two bombers, which briefly disrupted the column. The situation was stabilized when the Japanese unit received artillery support, allowing them to destroy or repel the armored cars. In March 1936, the Tauran incident occurred. In this clash, both the Japanese Army and the Mongolian Army deployed a small number of armored fighting vehicles and aircraft. The incident began when 100 Mongolian and six Soviet troops attacked and occupied the disputed village of Tauran, Mongolia, driving off the small Manchurian garrison. They were supported by light bombers and armored cars, though the bombing sorties failed to inflict damage on the Japanese, and three bombers were shot down by Japanese heavy machine guns. Local Japanese forces counter-attacked, conducting dozens of bombing sorties and finally assaulting Tauran with 400 men and 10 tankettes. The result was a Mongolian rout, with 56 Mongolian soldiers killed, including three Soviet advisors, and an unknown number wounded. Japanese losses were 27 killed and 9 wounded. Later in March 1936, another border clash occurred between Japanese and Soviet forces. Reports of border violations prompted the Japanese Korean Army to send ten men by truck to investigate, but the patrol was ambushed by 20 Soviet NKVD soldiers deployed about 300 meters inside territory claimed by Japan. After suffering several casualties, the Japanese patrol withdrew and was reinforced with 100 men, who then drove off the Soviets. Fighting resumed later that day when the NKVD brought reinforcements. By nightfall, the fighting had ceased and both sides had pulled back. The Soviets agreed to return the bodies of two Japanese soldiers who had died in the fighting, a development viewed by the Japanese government as encouraging. In early April 1936, three Japanese soldiers were killed near Suifenho in another minor affray. This incident was notable because the Soviets again returned the bodies of the fallen servicemen. In June 1937, the Kanchazu Island incident occurred on the Amur River along the Soviet–Manchukuo border. Three Soviet gunboats crossed the river's center line, disembarked troops, and occupied Kanchazu Island. Japanese forces from the IJA 1st Division, equipped with two horse-drawn 37 mm artillery pieces, quickly established improvised firing positions and loaded their guns with both high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. They shelled the Soviet vessels, sinking the lead gunboat, crippling the second, and driving off the third. Japanese troops subsequently fired on the swimming crewmen from the sunken ships using machine guns. Thirty-seven Soviet soldiers were killed, while Japanese casualties were zero. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs protested and demanded the Soviet forces withdraw from the island. The Soviet leadership, apparently shocked by the incident and reluctant to escalate, agreed to evacuate their troops. By 1938 the border situation had deteriorated. The tangled terrain features, mountain, bog, stream, forest, and valley, would have complicated even careful observers' discernment of the old red line drawn in 1886. Fifty years later, the markers themselves had undergone a metamorphosis. Japanese investigators could find, at most, only 14 to 17 markers standing fairly intact between the Tumen estuary and Khanka—roughly one every 25 miles at best. The remainder were missing or ruined; five were found in new locations. Marker "K," for example, was 40 meters deeper inside Manchuria, away from Khanka. Japanese military experts noted that of the 20 markers originally set along the boundaries of Hunchun Prefecture alone, only four could be found by the summer of 1938. The rest had either been wrecked or arbitrarily moved and discarded by Russian or Chinese officials and inhabitants. It is even said that one missing marker could be seen on display in Khabarovsk. The Chinese had generally interpreted the boundary as the road line just west of Khasan, at least in practice. Free road movement, however, had become a problem even 20 years before the Japanese overran Manchuria in 1931–1932 during the so-called Manchurian Incident. The Japanese adopted, or inherited, the Chinese interpretation, which was based on the 1886 agreement on border roads; the key clause held that the frontier west of Khasan would be the road along the lake. Japanese sources emphasize that local residents' anger toward gradual Soviet oppression and penetrations westward into Manchurian territory fueled the conflict. Many natives believed the original boundaries lay east of the lake, but the Soviets adjusted the situation to suit their own convenience. In practice, the Russians were restricting road use just west of Khasan by Manchurian and Korean residents. There was speculation that this was a prelude to taking over the ridgelines, depending on the reaction of the Manchukuoan–Japanese side. Villagers who went to streams or the lake to launder clothing found themselves subjected to sniper fire. Along a 25-mile stretch of road near Shachaofeng, farmers reported coming under fire from new Soviet positions as early as November 1935. Nevertheless, Japanese and Koreans familiar with the Tumen area noted agrarian, seasonal Korean religious rites atop Changkufeng Hill, including fattened pigs sacrificed and changgo drums beaten. Village elders told Japanese visitors in 1938 that, until early the preceding year, no Russians had come as far as Changkufeng Hill. Looking only at the border sector around Changkufeng, the easy days were clearly behind us. In the summer of 1938, Gaimusho "Foreign Ministry" observers described the explosive situation along the Korea–Manchuria–USSR borders as a matter of de facto frontiers. Both sides pressed against each other, and their trigger-happy posture was summed up in the colloquial refrain: "Take another step and we'll let you have it." Near dawn on 13 June 1938, a Manchurian patrol detected a suspicious figure in the fog swirling over Changlingtzu Hill on the Siberian–Manchurian frontier. Challenged at 15 feet, the suspect hurled two pistols to the ground and raised his hands in surrender. At headquarters, the police soon realized this was no routine border-trespassing case. The man was a defector and he was a Russian general, in fact he was the director of all NKVD forces in the Soviet Far East. Beneath a mufti of spring coat and hunting cap, he wore a full uniform with medals. His identification card No. 83 designated him as G. S. Lyushkov, Commissar 3rd Class, countersigned by Nikolai Yezhov, NKVD head in Moscow. Lyushkov was promptly turned over to the Japanese military authorities, who transferred him to Seoul and then to Tokyo under close escort. On 1 July, the Japanese press was permitted to disclose that Lyushkov had sought refuge in Japan. Ten days later, to capitalize on the commissar's notoriety and to confound skeptics, the Japanese produced Lyushkov at a press conference in Tokyo. For the Japanese and foreign correspondents, who met separately with him, Lyushkov described Soviet Far East strength and the turmoil wracking the USSR, because for those of you unfamiliar this was during the Stalinist purges. Clearly, the Japanese had gained a unique reservoir of high-level intelligence and a wealth of materials, including notes scratched in blood by suspects incarcerated at Khabarovsk. A general tightening of Russian frontier security had recently been reported. Natives of Fangchuanting asserted that a Soviet cavalry patrol appeared in June, seemingly for the first time. Contact with Yangkuanping, northwest of Khasan, was severed. More importantly, Japanese Army Signal Corps intelligence detected a surge of Soviet message traffic from the Posyet Bay district. After Lyushkov's defection, a drastic reshuffle in the local Russian command apparently occurred, and responsibility for border surveillance seems to have been reallocated. Japanese records indicate that the Novokievsk security force commander was relieved and the sector garrison replaced by troops from Vladivostok. Gaimusho intelligence also received reports that a border garrison unit had been transferred from Khabarovsk or Chita to the Tumen sector. The Kwantung Army signal monitors also intercepted two significant frontline messages on 6 July from the new Russian local commander in the Posyet region, addressed to Lieutenant General Sokolov in Khabarovsk. Decoded, the messages suggested (1) that ammunition for infantry mortars amounted to less than half the required supply; and  (2) a recommendation that higher headquarters authorize Russian elements to secure certain unoccupied high ground west of Khasan.  The commander noted terrain advantages and the contemplated construction of emplacements that would command Najin and the Korean railway. As a start, at least one Russian platoon should be authorized to dig in on the highest ground (presumably Changkufeng) and deploy four tons of entanglements to stake out the Soviet claim. Korea Army Headquarters received a telegram from the Kwantung Army on 7 July conveying the deciphered messages. On the same day, the 19th Division in North Korea telephoned Seoul that, on 6 July, three or four Soviet horsemen had been observed reconnoitering Manchurian territory from atop a hill called Changkufeng. The alarming intelligence from the Kwantung Army and the front warranted immediate attention by the Korea Army. Some Kwantung Army officers doubted the significance of the developments, with one intelligence official even suggesting the Russian messages might be a deliberate ploy designed to entrap the Japanese at Changkufeng. On 7–8 July, all staff officers in Seoul convened at army headquarters. The name of Changkufeng Hill was not well known, but maps and other data suggested that neither the Japanese nor the Russians had previously stationed border units in the ridge complex west of Khasan. As early as March 1936, Army Commander Koiso Kuniaki had distributed maps to subordinate units, indicating which sectors were in dispute. No patrol was to enter zones lacking definitive demarcation. Until then, the only Japanese element east of the Tumen was a Manchurian policeman at Fangchuanting. Ownership of the high ground emerged as an early issue. A number of other points were raised by  the Kwantung Army: At present, Soviet elements in the area were negligible. The intrusion must not be overlooked. The Russians could be expected to exploit any weakness, and half-measures would not suffice, especially regarding the Japanese defense mission along a 125-mile frontier. In Japanese hands, Changkufeng Hill would be useful, but two excellent observation posts already existed in the neighboring sector of the Manchurian tongue. With dissidence and purges underway, the Russians may have judged it necessary to seal border gaps, particularly after Lyushkov's defection. They may also have sought to control Changkufeng to offset Japanese dominance of the high ground to the north. Soviet seizure of Changkufeng would upset the delicate status quo and could provoke a contest for equivalent observation posts. In broader terms, it mattered little whether the Russians sought a permanent observation post on Changkufeng Hill, which was of relatively minor strategic value. Japan's primary concern lay in the China theater; Changkufeng was peripheral. The Japanese should not expend limited resources or become distracted. The matter required consultation with the high command in Tokyo. In the absence of more comprehensive intelligence, the assembled staff officers concluded that the Korea Army should, at a minimum, ignore or disregard Soviet actions for the time being, while maintaining vigilant observation of the area. The consensus was communicated to Major General Kitano Kenzo, the Korea Army chief of staff, who concurred, and to Koiso. Upon learning that the recommendation advocated a low posture, Koiso inquired only whether the opinion reflected the unanimous view of the staff. Having been assured that it did, he approved the policy. Koiso, then 58, was at the threshold of the routine personnel changes occurring around 15 July. He had just been informed that he would retire and that General Nakamura Kotaro would succeed him. Those acquainted with Koiso perceived him as treating the border difficulties as a minor anticlimax in the course of his command tour. He appeared unemphatic or relaxed as he prepared to depart from a post he had held for twenty-one years. Although neither Koiso nor his staff welcomed the Soviet activities that appeared under way, his reaction likely reflected a reluctance to make decisions that could constrain his soon-to-arrive successor. On 8 July Koiso authorized the dispatch of warnings to the 19th Division at Nanam, to the Hunchun garrison, and to the intelligence branch at Hunchun. These units were instructed to exercise maximum precautions and to tighten frontier security north of Shuiliufeng. In response to the initial appearance of Soviet horsemen at Changkufeng, the Kucheng Border Garrison Unit of the 76th Infantry Regiment maintained close surveillance across the Tumen. By about noon on 9 July, patrols detected approximately a dozen Russian troops commencing construction atop Changkufeng. Between 11 and 13 July, the number of soldiers on the slopes increased to forty; there were also thirty horses and eleven camouflaged tents. Operating in shifts on the western side, thirty meters from the crest, the Russians erected barbed wire and firing trenches; fifty meters forward, they excavated observation trenches. In addition to existing telephone lines between Changkufeng, Lake Khasan, and Kozando, the Russians installed a portable telephone net. Logistical support was provided by three boats on the lake. Approximately twenty kilometers to the east, well within Soviet territory, large forces were being mobilized, and steamship traffic into Posyet Bay intensified. Upon learning of the "intrusion" at Changkufeng on 9 July, Lt. General Suetaka Kamezo, the commander of the 19th Division, dispatched staff officers to the front and prepared to send elements to reinforce border units.  The special significance of Suetaka and his division stemmed from a series of unusual circumstances. Chientao Province, the same zone into which Lyushkov had fled and the sector where Soviet horsemen had appeared, fell within Manchukuo geographically and administratively. Yet, in terms of defense, the configuration of the frontier, the terrain, and the transportation network more closely connected the region with North Korea than with southeastern Manchuria. Approximately 80% of the population was of Korean origin, which implied Japanese rather than Manchukuoan allegiance. Consequently, the Korea Army had been made operationally responsible for the defense of Chientao and controlled not only the three-battalion garrison at Hunchun but also the intelligence detachment located there. In the event of war, the Korea Army's mission was defined as mobilization and execution of subsidiary operational tasks against the USSR, under the control and in support of the Kwantung Army.  The Korea Army ordinarily possessed two infantry divisions, the 19th in North Korea and the 20th stationed at Seoul, but the 20th Division had already departed for China, leaving only the 20th Depot Division in the capital. Beyond sparse ground units, devoid of armor and with weak heavy artillery, there were only two air regiments in Korea, the nearest being the unit at Hoeryong. The Korea Army was designed to maintain public security within Korea as well as fulfill minimal defensive responsibilities. Such an army did not require a full-time operations officer, and none was maintained. When needed, as in mid-1938, the task fell to the senior staff officer, in this case Colonel Iwasaki Tamio. In peacetime, training constituted the primary focus.  Thus, the 19th Division was entrusted with defending northeastern Korea. Its commander, Suetaka, a seasoned infantryman, resented the fact that his elite force had never engaged in combat in China. He intensified training with zeal, emphasizing strict discipline, bravery, aggressiveness, and thorough preparation. Japanese veterans characterized him as severe, bullish, short-tempered, hot-blooded, highly strung, unbending, and stubborn. Nonetheless, there was widespread respect for his realistic training program, maintained under firm, even violent, personal supervision. His men regarded Suetaka as a professional, a modern samurai who forged the division into superb condition. Privately, he was reputed for sensitivity and warmth; a Japanese phrase "yakamashii oyaji" captures the dual sense of stern father and martinet in his character. At the outset, however, Suetaka displayed little aggression. Although not widely known, he did not welcome the orders from army headquarters to deploy to the Tumen. Until late July, he remained somewhat opposed to the notion of dislodging the Soviets from the crest, a proposition arising from neither the division staff nor, initially, Suetaka himself. Colonel Sato noted that, for a week after reports of Soviet excavation at Changkufeng, the division's response was limited to preparations for a possible emergency, as they perceived the matter as a local issue best settled through diplomacy. Korea Army officers acknowledged that, around the time the Soviets consolidated their outpost strength at Changkufeng, an informal and personal telegram arrived in Seoul from a Kwantung Army Intelligence field-grade officer who specialized in Soviet affairs. If the Korea Army hesitated, the Kwantung Army would be obliged to eject the Russians; the matter could not be ignored. While the telegram did not demand a reply and struck several officers as presumptuous and implausible, the message was promptly shown to Koiso. Koiso was driven to immediate action, he wired Tokyo asserting that only the Korea Army could and would handle the incident. One staff officer recalled "We felt we had to act, out of a sense of responsibility. But we resented the Kwantung Army's interference." The Korea Army staff convened shortly after receipt of the unofficial telegram from Hsinking. Based on the latest intelligence from the division dated 13 July, the officers prepared an assessment for submission to the army commander. The hypotheses were distilled into three scenarios: The USSR, or the Far East authorities, desires hostilities. Conclusion: Slightly possible. The USSR seeks to restrain Japan on the eve of the pivotal operations in China: the major Japanese offensive to seize Hankow. Conclusion: Highly probable. The Posyet district commander is new in his post; by occupying the Changkufeng ridges, he would demonstrate loyalty, impress superiors, and seek glory. Conclusion: Possible. Late on 13 July or early on 14 July, Koiso approved the dispatch of a message to the vice minister of war, and the Kwantung Army chief of staff:  "Lake Khasan area lies in troublesome sector USSR has been claiming . . . in accordance with treaties [said Secret Message No. 913], but we interpret it to be Manchukuoan territory, evident even from maps published by Soviet side. Russian actions are patently illegal, but, considering that area does not exert major or immediate influence on operations [Japan] is intending and that China Incident is in full swing, we are not going to conduct counterattack measures immediately. This army is thinking of reasoning with Soviets and requesting pullback, directly on spot. . . . In case Russians do not accede in long run, we have intention to drive Soviet soldiers out of area east of Khasan firmly by use of force."  The message concluded with a request that the Tokyo authorities lodge a formal protest with the USSR, on behalf of Manchukuo and Japan, and guide matters so that the Russians would withdraw quickly. Dominant in Japanese high command thinking in 1938 was the China theater; the Changkufeng episode constituted a mere digression. A sequence of Japanese tactical victories had preceded the summer: Tsingtao fell in January; the Yellow River was reached in March; a "reformed government of the Republic of China" was installed at Nanking several weeks later; Amoy fell in early May; Suchow fell on the 20th. With these gains, northern and central fronts could be linked by the Japanese. Yet Chinese resistance persisted, and while public statements anticipated imminent Chinese dissension, private admissions acknowledged that the partial effects of Suchow's fall were ominous: control might pass from Chiang Kai-shek to the Communists, Chinese defiance might intensify, and Soviet involvement could ensue. A Hankow drive appeared desirable to symbolize the conclusion of the military phase of hostilities. The Japanese and their adversaries were in accord regarding the importance of the summer and autumn campaigns. Even after Suchow's fall, the government discouraged public insinuations that enemy resistance was collapsing; when Chiang addressed the nation on the first anniversary of hostilities, Premier Konoe prophetically proclaimed, "The war has just begun." Colonel Inada Masazum served as the Army General Staff's principal figure for the Changkufeng affair, occupying the position of chief of the 2nd Operations Section within the Operations Bureau in March 1938. A distinguished graduate of the Military Academy, Inada completed the War College program and held a combination of line, instructional, and staff assignments at the War College, the Army General Staff, and the War Ministry. He was recognized as a sharp, highly capable, and driveful personality, though some regarded him as enigmatic. Following the capture of Suchow, Imperial General Headquarters on 18 June ordered field forces to undertake operational preparations for a drive to seize the Wuhan complex. Inada favored a decisive move aimed at achieving a rapid political settlement. He acknowledged that Soviet intervention in 1938, during Japan's involvement in China, would have been critical. Although Japanese forces could still defeat the Chinese, an overextended Japanese Army might be fatally compromised against the Russians. Soviet assistance to China was already pronouncedly unwelcome. The Soviets were reported to possess roughly 20 rifle divisions, four to five cavalry divisions, 1,500 tanks, and 1,560 aircraft, including 300 bombers with a range of approximately 3,000 kilometers, enabling reach from Vladivostok to Tokyo. Soviet manpower in Siberia was likely near 370,000. In response, Japanese central authorities stressed a no-trouble policy toward the USSR while seeking to "wall off" the border and bolster the Kwantung Army as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the envisaged correction of the strategic imbalance could not occur before 1943, given shortages in ammunition, manpower, and materiel across existing theaters in China. By the end of 1937 Japan had committed 16 of its 24 divisions to China, bringing the standing force to roughly 700,000. Army General Staff planners reallocated three ground divisions, intended for a northern contingency, from north to central China, even as the Kwantung Army operated from a less favorable posture. Attitudes toward the northern problem varied within senior military circles. While concern persisted, it was not universal. As campaigns in China widened, planning at the high command level deteriorated, propagating confusion and anxiety to field armies in China. The Japanese Navy suspected that the Army general staff was invoking the USSR as a pretext for broader strategic aims—namely, to provoke a more consequential confrontation with the USSR while the Navy contended with its own strategic rivalries with the Army, centered on the United States and Britain. Army leaders, however, denied aggressive intent against the USSR at that time. The Hankow plan encountered substantial internal opposition at high levels. Private assessments among army planners suggested that a two-front war would be premature given operational readiness and troop strength. Not only were new War Ministry officials cautious, but many high-ranking Army general staff officers and court circles shared doubts.  Aggressive tendencies, influenced by subordinates and the Kwantung Army, were evident in Inada, who repeatedly pressed Tada Shun, the deputy army chief of staff, to endorse the Wuhan drive as both necessary and feasible, arguing that the USSR would gain from Japan's weakening without incurring substantial losses. Inada contended that Stalin was rational and that time favored the USSR in the Far East, where industrial buildup and military modernization were ongoing. He argued that the Soviet purges impeded opportunistic ventures with Japan. He posited that Nazi Germany posed a growing threat on the western front, and thus the USSR should be avoided by both Japan, due to China and Russia, due to Germany. While most of the army remained engaged in China, Tada did not initially share Inada's views; only after inspecting the Manchurian borders in April 1938 did he finally align with Inada's broader vision, which encompassed both northern and Chinese considerations. During this period, Inada studied daily intelligence from the Kwantung Army, and after Lyushkov's defection in June, reports suggested the Soviets were following their sector commander's recommendations. Russian troops appeared at Changkufeng, seemingly prepared to dig in. Inada recollects his reaction: "That's nice, my chance has come." I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. The simmering Soviet–Japanese border clashes centered on Changkufeng Hill near Lake Khanka, set within a broader history of contested frontiers dating to Qing and Tsarist treaties. Japan, prioritizing China, considered Changkufeng peripheral but ready to confront Soviet encroachment; Moscow aimed to consolidate border gains, with high-level war planning overlaying regional skirmishes. Conflict loomed over Manchuria.

How was the history of Russia made by its women through the cataclysms of revolution, war, idealism, and defeat? Join us for an engaging tour of Russia through the lives of its women. Journalist Julia Ioffe and her family fled the Soviet Union in 1990. She wouldn't return for nearly two decades, and when she did, she found a country significantly changed. The Soviet Union had tried to portray itself as being on the vanguard of world feminism; today, Russia presents itself as the last bastion of conservative Christian values. How did that happen? What happened to the women of the Soviet era, who served as doctors, engineers and scientists? How, she asks, did they get replaced with women who are just desperate to marry rich and become stay-at-home mothers? It's a topic she explores in her new book Motherland: A Feminist History of Modern Russia, from Revolution to Autocracy. From her own great grandmothers, who were physicians, to Lenin's lover, who was a feminist revolutionary, to the hundreds of thousands of young Soviet women to fought in the Second World War to the millions of single mothers who repopulated the devastated country—and onward to Pussy Riot and Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of opposition leader Alexey Navalny. Ioffe reveals the failure of the social experimentation of the Soviet era and how it paved the way for the revanchist policies of Vladimir Putin.   Commonwealth Club World Affairs of California is a nonprofit public forum; we welcome donations made during registration to support the production of our programming. Commonwealth Club World Affairs is a public forum. Any views expressed in our programs are those of the speakers and not of Commonwealth Club World Affairs. This program contains EXPLICIT language. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

62 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas joins Pete to continue a series examing the work of Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezin) and Joachim Hoffmann who sought to prove in their books, "Icebreaker," and "Stalin's War of Extermination," that Stalin orchestrated the beginning of World War 2.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Buy Me a CoffeeThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

In 1944, scientists in the employ of the United States Military were on the cusp of the most consequential discoveries in history. Fearing that the US might use their invention — an atomic fusion bomb — to hold the world hostage, a few of its creators attempted to leak its specifications to the Soviet Union. One tried to stop its construction altogether. This is his story — but in our Pod Universe, nothing is quite so simple as a spy drama, is it?It's Dalton's first solo pitch of the Pod Universe, and like Dylan's space opera, it's a big swing! Will this historical sci-fi thriller capture the interest of the Pod Universe faithful? Has Dalton stepped too far out of their monster movie wheelhouse?Only one way to find out.OUR SPONSORS:Ritual Deck RPG: plusoneexp.comThe FrankencastReturn to Blacktail Harbor: roguecentaur.itch.io/blacktailOUR PATREON: patreon.com/dylananddaltonOUT SHOP: shop.thepoduniverse.comCHAPTERS00:00:00 - Cold Open00:04:21 - Predictions and Expectations00:21:30 - Act One00:45:17 - Sponsor: Ritual Deck RPG00:46:05 - Discussion01:02:13 - Act Two (part one)01:26:29 - Sponsors: The Frankencast & Return to Blacktail Harbor01:29:04 - Discussion01:40:32 - Previews & Acknolwedgments

Aaron Benanav discusses the second part of his ‘Beyond Capitalism' essay series in the New Left Review. In this part he lays out the institutional design of his proposal of a multi-criterial economy. Shownotes Aaron at Cornell University: https://cals.cornell.edu/people/aaron-benanav Aaron's personal website: https://www.aaronbenanav.com/ Access to Aaron's paywalled publications: https://www.aaronbenanav.com/papers Mailing List to join the Movement for Multi-Dimensional Economics: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeUF7MZ2jQJXY_wHKn5xSIo-_L0tkMO-SG079sa5lGhRJTgqg/viewform Benanav, A. (2025). Beyond Capitalism—1. New Left Review, Issue 153, 65–128. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii153/articles/aaron-benanav-beyond-capitalism-1 Benanav, A. (2025). Beyond Capitalism—2. New Left Review, Issue 154, 97–143. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii154/articles/aaron-benanav-beyond-capitalism-2 Benanv, A. (2020). Automation and the Future of Work. Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2682-automation-and-the-future-of-work on economic stagnation, see especially chapter 3, “In the Shadow of Stagnation”. on Marx's concept of the Value-Form: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm Moore, J.W. & Patel, R. (2020). A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things. A Guide to Capitalism, Nature, and the Future of the Planet. Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/products/817-a-history-of-the-world-in-seven-cheap-things on the abstract domination of capitalism: Postone, M. (1993). Time, Labor and Social Domination. A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://files.libcom.org/files/Moishe%20Postone%20-%20Time,%20Labor,%20and%20Social%20Domination.pdf Mau, S. (2023). Mute Compulsion. A Marxist Theory of the Economic Power of Capital. Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2759-mute-compulsion Leipold, B. (2024). Citizen Marx. Republicanism and the Formation of Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691205236/citizen-marx on GDP (Gross Domestic Product): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product on the Five-Year Plans in the Soviet Union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_the_Soviet_Union Katsenelinboigen, A. (1977). Coloured Markets in the Soviet Union. Soviet Studies. Vol. 29, No.1. 62-85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/150728 Uvalić, M. (2018). The Rise and Fall of Market Socialism in Yugoslavia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331223694_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Market_Socialism_in_Yugoslavia on Friedrich Hayek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1809376 on the Pareto Optimum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency on Rational Choice Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_model on Behavioral Economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics on Otto Neurath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Neurath on Neurath's technocratic tendencies: https://jacobin.com/2023/02/technocratic-socialism-otto-neurath-utopianism-capitalism on Joseph Raz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Raz on Utilitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism on the Capability Approach by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach on the Human Development Index (HDI): https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI on the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs): https://sdgs.un.org/goals on Multi-Objective Optimization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-objective_optimization Saros, D. E. (2014). Information Technology and Socialist Construction. The End of Capital and the Transition to Socialism. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Information-Technology-and-Socialist-Construction-The-End-of-Capital-and-the-Transition-to-Socialism/Saros/p/book/9780415742924 on Neoclassical Economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics on Citizen Assemblies and Sortition: https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/ on John Stuart Mill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill Mill, J. S. (2011). On Liberty. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/on-liberty/62EC27F1E66E2BCBA29DDCD5294B3DE0 McCabe, H. (2021). John Stuart Mill, Socialist. McGill-Queen's University Press. https://www.mqup.ca/john-stuart-mill--socialist-products-9780228005742.php on Degrowth: https://degrowth.info/ on Nick Land and Right Accelerationism: https://youtu.be/lrOVKHg_PJQ?si=Q4oFbaM1p4fhcWP0 on Left Accelerationism: https://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/14/accelerate-manifesto-for-an-accelerationist-politics/ Devine, P. (2002). Participatory Planning through Negotiated Coordination. Science & Society, Vol. 66, No. 1, 72-85. https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/siso.66.1.72.21001?journalCode=siso on Oskar R. Lange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_R._Lange on Lange's neoclassical approach to Socialism: https://jacobin.com/2022/10/oskar-lange-neoclassical-marxism-limits-of-capitalism-economic-theory Kowalik, T. (1990). Lange-Lerner Mechanism. In: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. (eds). Problems of the Planned Economy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-20863-0_21 on Joseph Schumpeters concept of Creative Destruction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction Shaikh, A. (2016). Capitalism. Competition, Conflict, Crises. Oxford Academic. https://academic.oup.com/book/1464 Kornai, J. (1980). “Hard” and “Soft” Budget Constraint. Acta Oeconomica, 25(3/4), 231–245. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40728773 on the Cobb-Douglas Production Function: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobb%E2%80%93Douglas_production_function on Adam Smith: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith Lutosch, H. (2025). Embracing the Small Stuff. Caring for Children in a Liberated Society. In: Groos, J., & Sorg, C. (Eds.). (2025). Creative Construction. Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction Hahnel, R. (2021). Democratic Economic Planning. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Democratic-Economic-Planning/Hahnel/p/book/9781032003320 Cockshott, P. & Cottrell, A. (1993). Towards a New Socialism. Spokesman. https://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf on Universal Basic Services (UBS): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_services https://autonomy.work/ubs-hub/ Fraser, N. & Sorg, C. (2025). Socialism, Planning and the Relativity of Dirt. In: Groos, J., & Sorg, C. (Eds.). (2025). Creative Construction. Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction on Milton Friedman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman on John Maynard Keynes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes Aaron on what to learn from radical Keynesianism for a transitionary Program: Benanav, A. & Henwood, D. (2025). Behind the News. Beyond the Capitalist Economy w/ Aaron Benanav. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2diIiFkkM4x7MoZhi9e0tx on Socializing Finance: McCarthy, M. A. (2025). The Master's Tools. How Finance Wrecked Democracy (And a Radical Plan to Rebuild It). Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/products/755-the-master-s-tools Future Histories Episodes on Related Topics S3E47 | Jason W. Moore on Socialism in the Web of Life https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e47-jason-w-moore-on-socialism-in-the-web-of-life/ S03E29 | Nancy Fraser on Alternatives to Capitalism https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e29-nancy-fraser-on-alternatives-to-capitalism/ S03E04 | Tim Platenkamp on Republican Socialism, General Planning and Parametric Control https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e04-tim-platenkamp-on-republican-socialism-general-planning-and-parametric-control/ S02E33 | Pat Devine on Negotiated Coordination https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e33-pat-devine-on-negotiated-coordination/ S03E10 | Aaron Benanav on Associational Socialism and Democratic Planning https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e10-aaron-benanav-on-associational-socialism-and-democratic-planning/ S01E32 | Daniel E. Saros on Digital Socialism and the Abolition of Capital (Part 2) https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e32-daniel-e-saros-on-digital-socialism-and-the-abolition-of-capital-part-2/ S02E31 | Daniel E. Saros on Digital Socialism and the Abolition of Capital (Part 1) https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e31-daniel-e-saros-on-digital-socialism-and-the-abolition-of-capital-part-1/ --- If you are interested in democratic economic planning, these resources might be of help: Democratic planning – an information website https://www.democratic-planning.com/ Sorg, C. & Groos, J. (eds.)(2025). Rethinking Economic Planning. Competition & Change Special Issue Volume 29 Issue 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/ccha/29/1 Groos, J. & Sorg, C. (2025). Creative Construction - Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. [for a review copy, please contact: amber.lanfranchi[at]bristol.ac.uk] https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction International Network for Democratic Economic Planning https://www.indep.network/ Democratic Planning Research Platform: https://www.planningresearch.net/ --- Future Histories Contact & Support If you like Future Histories, please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories Contact: office@futurehistories.today Twitter: https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #AaronBenanav, #JanGroos, #Interview, #FutureHistories, #FutureHistoriesInternational, #futurehistoriesinternational, #Transition, #DemocraticPlanning, #Keynes, #Efficiency, #Economics, #NeoclassicalEconomics, #NeoclassicalSocialism, #OttoNeurath, #DemocraticEconomicPlanning, #Capitalism, #Economics, #Socialism, #Socialisation, #Investment, #Degrowth, #UniversalBasicServices, #CareWork

4. The Failure of the Soviet Zond Program and the Decision to Gamble on Apollo 8. Bob Zimmerman discusses the fierce moon race with the Soviet Union's Roscosmos, which utilized the Zond capsule for circumlunar missions. Zond 5 and 6, launched in late 1968, suffered critical failures (guidance system and atmosphere loss, respectively), forcing the Soviets to cancel their planned manned December flight. Watching this, NASA manager George Low realized the Lunar Module (LM) for Apollo 8 was behind schedule. To maintain the initiative and potentially win the space race, Low and Sam Phillips made the aggressive decision to send Apollo 8 to the moon without the LM "lifeboat." They informed NASA boss James Webb after the decision was finalized. Webb, though initially upset, accepted the decision, betting that the engineering was sound enough to risk the mission in order to prove the US was superior. 1965 APOLLO 1

Although not completely here today and gone tomorrow, the conspiracy theories and science fiction being sold online about 3I Atlas are; on October 31 the comet reached its perihelion position near the sun and, of course, none of the outrageous claims about aliens turned out to be true. On the other hand, the comet changed its color, brightness and speed on its solar journey, all things considered very odd. Some said blue then it was green, then it had a tail then it didn't. But what is odd, especially for interstellar objects that have only been studied for about eight years now. Odd doesn't mean alien invasion; it means unusual. We should obviously keep an open mind to different theories but those about 3I-aliens were inspired by a misunderstanding of Avi Loeb's Harvard paper which stated: “By far the most likely outcome will be that 3I/ATLAS is a completely natural interstellar object, probably a comet, and the authors await the astronomical data to support this likely origin.” With the success of 3I Atlas garbage, clickbait news have added to their catalogues of nonsense, now claiming certain space objects like 2025-PN7 may be from an “ancient civilization,” i.e., the Soviet Union.From the size of 3I Atlas to its nickel composition, to its non-gravitational acceleration, and including its inbound direction from the general area from whence the Wow Signal originated, it is not irrational to consider the possibility of a Bracewell probe or something similar, but alien invasion is more than a stretch. Some were even claiming that the object was broadcasting the Fibonacci Signal and a coded message that read “Observe. Prepare. Understand. The Gate Awaits.”On August 15, 2002, a crop circle showing a gray alien head with a binary spiral disk appeared near Crabwood Farm House, Hampshire, UK—about 4 miles from the Chilbolton Radio Observatory. The disk's ASCII code decoded to: "Beware the bearers of FALSE gifts & their BROKEN PROMISES. Much PAIN but still time. BELIEVE. There is GOOD out there. We Oppose DECEPTION. Conduit CLOSING." Sound similar?How much of this is real as opposed to imagined, or manmade instead of the opposite, is always debatable and clickable. Considering how much lying and theft there is in the UFO community nothing can be taken seriously. This applies to the early years of Ufology and its newest manifestation as a Congressional investigation. How much is motivated by fantasy, delusion, or genuine experiences that are not explainable, is one thing, but how much is motivated by religion is another. Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna told Joe Rogan in August 2025 that she's seen evidence of “interdimensional beings” and that there are reports of their “movements outside of time and space.” She went on to refer to the Bible, Christ, and Book of Enoch, essentially addressing ancient astronaut theory. Avi Loeb had likewise posited that 3I/ATLAS may herald the arrival of “a messianic era,” that the messiah may come “from another star.” This has sparked a conspiracy that Loeb, former IDF, was trying to use the comet to push for a NWO in favor of the intelligence community. Both Loeb and Anna are Jewish, which is important to consider because the entire idea of ancient aliens, or paleo-astronautics, was first introduced by Matest M. Agrest who was born into a family of Torah scholars.The idea here is that regardless of what 3I Atlas really is, which is probably rocks, metals, and gas, any celestial event can be, and always has been, molded to the benefits and beliefs of powers and people. Without clear and accepted answers we will continue dealing with a blank slate by which we can project our imagination and beliefs. One man's alien is another man's god, and another man's demon. It is also becoming more likely that we are going to find intelligent life first through machines instead of deep space, making AI possibly more ancient than artificial.*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 FACEBOOKWEBSITEBuyMe-CoffeePaypal: rdgable1991@gmail.comCashApp: $rdgable EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com /TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

My guest is Dr. Mike Israetel, a PhD in Sport Physiology and a co-founder of ‪Renaissance Periodization‬. We discuss RFK, seed oils, endocrine disruptors, xenoestrogens and every other “based” twitter health meme in your news feed. We explore Dr. Mike's background growing up in the crumbling Soviet Union and his life-changing encounter with libertarian philosophy. Later, we investigate the so-called pipeline between far right politics and weight-lifting. Is there any truth to this narrative? You can get access to the full catalog for Doomscroll and more by becoming a paid supporter: www.patreon.com/joshuacitarella joshuacitarella.substack.com/subscribe

In this week's episode of Talk Eastern Europe, Adam, Alexandra, and Nina come together to discuss the ongoing Serbian protests and explore the latest European Union reports on the progress of candidate countries, including those from our region. They also unpack the latest developments surrounding the Czech government formation and discuss recent updates from Poland.Later in the episode, Alexandra and Nina speak with Christopher Herwig, a photographer known for his remarkable project documenting hundreds of unique bus stops across the post-Soviet region. Christopher shares how his journey began and reflects on how these striking examples of urban architecture may represent glimpses of freedom of expression within the Soviet Union.For our Patreon supporters, Christopher stays on to delve deeper into his fascination with Soviet metro stations and the stories behind their grand, distinctive designs.Listen here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-243-143049188Check out Christopher's books:Soviet Bus Stops 1a nd 2 and Soviet Metro Stations: https://www.herwigphoto.com/Soviet-Bus-StopsAnd his newest book on Trucks and Tuks: https://www.herwigphoto.com/Trucks-and-Tuks

The world is on the brink of nuclear war. How can the Soviet Union and the USA prevent it? Hosts Nina Khrushcheva and Max Kennedy, relatives of the superpower leaders President John F Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev, tell the personal and political history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Together Nina and Max explore what drove JFK and Khrushchev during the darkest days of October 1962. And when the crisis moves beyond their control as a U-2 spy plane is shot down over Cuba, how do they avoid global catastrophe?Released from 1st December. Follow or subscribe so you never miss an episode.

In this episode, public school history teacher Gianni Paul joins Breht to trace the historical roots of our current crisis — stagnant wages, mass homelessness, collapsing infrastructure, rising fascism, Gilded Age inequality, and a beaten down working class — back to Reagan's counter-revolution against the New Deal and the forty-year neoliberal project that followed. Together, they explore how neoliberalism emerged out of the crises of the 1970s, Carter's role in laying the groundwork before Reagan, the destruction of unions and working-class power, the ideological weaponization of anti-communism, the bipartisan consolidation of neoliberalism under Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, the ways Reagan and Trump represent two phases of the same class project, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of capitalist triumphalism, the slow disintegration of America's middle class into debt and precarity, the explosion of homelessness and hopelessness, the erosion of U.S. imperial dominance alongside the emergence of a multipolar world, and why the U.S. repeatedly chooses reaction over social transformation — raising the question of whether genuine change can still emerge from within the imperial core or whether new possibilities are taking shape elsewhere. Understanding this history is key to understanding why everyday life in America feels increasingly unstable, and what futures remain possible beyond neoliberal decay. Follow Gianni and The People's Classroom on Instagram @thepeoplesclassroom315    Check out his full lectures on YouTube HERE ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio https://revleftradio.com/  

Democrats clean sweep elections across the country including Socialist Zohran Mamdani winning the Mayoral Race in New York City. Reports show the Democrats were told to remain firm to keep the government shut down until after Election Day. Exit polls show young women and men are moving back to the Democrat Party. Leftist podcaster Hasan Piker declares it was a tragedy that the USA defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War at Mamdani's Election party. Brett Cooper pretends she doesn't understand why people are calling Nick Fuentes a Nazi. Proposition 50 passes in California allowing gerrymandering for Democrats. Is the lack of Trump's name on the ballot hurting the GOP's chances? Jay Jones gets elected as Virginia's Attorney General even after his violent texting scandal. President Trump threatens getting rid of the Senate filibuster. Pete Buttigieg's DOT spent $80 BILLION on DEI grants and delayed air traffic control upgrades. A Karen at Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport goes on a tirade after passengers criticize her for getting up and moving forward to get off the plane before the passengers in front of her.Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Patriot Mobilehttps://PatriotMobile.com/Dana  OR CALL 972-PATRIOTStand for freedom with Dana's personal cell phone provider--Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service code DANANoble Goldhttps://NobleGoldInvestments.com/DanaOpen a new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and get a free 10-ounce Silver Flag Bar plus a Silver American Eagle Proof Coin. Limited-time offer. Byrnahttps://Byrna.com/DanaTake advantage of Byrna's Black Friday and Cyber Monday sale with 15% off sitewide.  PreBornhttps://Preborn.com/DANAAnswer the call and help save lives—dial pound 250 and say “Baby,” or give securely online. Make your gift today.AmmoSquaredhttps://AmmoSquared.comDon't get caught without ammo, and be sure to tell them you heard about Ammo Squared on this show. Keltechttps://KelTecWeapons.comKelTec builds every KS7 GEN2 right here in the USA with American materials and workers—upgrade your home defense today. All Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/Dana Don't wait until flu season knocks at your door. Use code DANA10 at checkout to save 10%. Relief Factorhttps://ReliefFactor.com OR CALL 1-800-4-RELIEFTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today! HumanNhttps://HumanN.comStart supporting your cardiovascular health with SuperBeets, now available at your local Walmart.

This week we talk about Mach 1, the Bell X-1, and the Concorde.We also discuss the X-59, the Tu-144, and Boom Supersonic.Recommended Book: Red Team Blues by Cory DoctorowTranscriptThe term “supersonic,” when applied to speed, refers to something moving faster than the speed of sound—a speed that is shorthanded as Mach 1.The precise Mach 1 speed of sound will be different depending on the nature of the medium through which an object is traveling. So if you're moving at sea level versus up high in the air, in the stratosphere, the speed of sound will be different. Likewise if you're moving through moist air versus dry air, or moving through water versus moving through syrup, different speed of sound, different Mach 1.In general, though, to give a basic sense of how fast we're talking here, if an object is moving at sea level through dry air at a temperature of 20 degrees celsius, which is 68 degrees fahrenheit, Mach 1 is about 768 miles per hour, which is about 1,126 feet per second, and 343.2 meters per second.It's fast! It's very fast. Again, this is the speed at which sound moves. So if you surpass the speed of sound, if you go supersonic, you will arrive faster than the sound you make while moving.Back in 1947, an experimental American plane called the Bell X-1 broke the sound barrier, surpassed Mach 1, reaching a speed of almost 1,000 miles per hour using a 6,000 pound thrust rocket propulsion system. A later version of the same rocket-powered plane, the Bell X-1A, which was basically the same vehicle, it just had more fuel capacity, allowing the rocket to burn longer, achieved 1,600 miles per hour in 1956.Prior to that, in 1943, British began working on a secret experimental aircraft called the Miles M.52, intending to build a plane capable of traveling 1,000 mph. Interestingly, this project was apparently the result of the British wanting to keep up with a supposed already existing German aircraft capable of achieving that speed, though it's now believed the intelligence that led the British to believe the Germans had a supersonic-capable plane was the result of a mistranslation—the Germans hit 1,000 km per hour, which is about 621 mph, and still subsonic.Though apparently a success in terms of research and innovation, the Miles M.52 project was cancelled in 1946, due partly to budgetary concerns, and partly because the new government didn't believe supersonic aircraft were practical, or maybe even feasible.After the existence of this project was revealed to the public, however, criticism for the cancellation mounted, and the design was translated into new, unmanned scale-model experimental versions of the plane which achieved controlled Mach 1.38 supersonic speeds, and both the design and research from this program was shared with the American company, Bell, and all that knowledge informed the development of the aforementioned Bell X-1 supersonic plane.Again, that successful Bell mission was flown in 1947, and in 1961, a Douglas jetliner, a commercial jet, broke the sound barrier during a controlled test dive, and that fed the development of an intended supersonic airliner in the US, though similar research being conducted elsewhere would bear more direct and immediate fruit.In the Soviet Union, a supersonic jetliner called the Tupolev Tu-144 entered service in 1968, and a jetliner co-developed by the British and French, the Concorde, began construction in 1965, and tallied its first flight in March of 1969.The Tu-144 was thus the world's first commercial supersonic airliner, by a few months, and it also became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2, twice the speed of sound, in 1970.The Tu-144 was plagued by reliability issues from the get-go, however, and while performing maneuvers at an air show in Paris in 1973, it disintegrated in midair, which—combined with its high operating costs reduced its long-term market viability, especially internationally. By the mid-1970s, it was primarily operating within the Soviet Union, and after a new variant of the jet crashed in 1978, the Tu-144 program was cancelled in 1983. Existing models continued to be use for niche purposes, like training space program pilots, and for a supersonic research program undertaken by NASA in the late-1990s, but the final Tu-144 flight was in mid-1999, and all surviving aircraft are now on display or in storage.The Concorde has a similar history. Original forecasts for the supersonic airliner market were optimistic, and while the craft seemed to be generally more reliable and less issue-prone than the Tu-144, and it enjoyed a period of fanfare and promotion, as a sort of luxury experience for folks crossing the Atlantic in particular, cutting travel times in half, a major crash in mid-2000, which killed all 109 occupants and four people on the ground, led to the suspension of service until late-2001, and all remaining Concorde aircraft were retired in 2003—about 20 of them are on display throughout North American and Europe, as of the mid-2020s.The costs associated with operating Concorde aircraft, as with the Tu-144, were also quite high, and those costs and other complications led to the cancellation of a would-be supersonic jetliner competitor from Boeing, the 2707, in 1971, before it built any prototypes.What I'd like to talk about today is a renewed enthusiasm for supersonic passenger aircraft, and what's changed that might make supersonic transport a viable market, today.—In the United States, commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly at supersonic speeds. This is because the sonic booms generated by supersonic flight, which are shockwaves that work a bit like the crack of a bullwhip or the firing of a bullet, but much, much larger, can set off alarms, rattle or shatter windows, and generally create all sorts of chaos on the ground, even in areas not directly under the aircraft that's breaking the sound barrier.This was true even during the heyday of the Concorde: the craft was only allowed to travel at supersonic speeds over the ocean, because doing so over populated areas was such a pain, and in some cases, a danger.Sonic booms aren't the only reason supersonic aircraft like the Concorde failed to establish a long-term presence in the airline industry, but they're a big part of it. It's just really difficult to work around that kind of persistent issue.This is why a new experimental project by NASA, the X-59 Quesst, with two-s's, Quesst standing for Quiet SuperSonic Technology, is garnering so much attention. Built by Lockheed Martin, the X-59 is said to dramatically reduce the scale of sonic booms, instead producing what's been described as a sonic thump, its long, slender nose breaking up the pressure waves that otherwise build up and create that much larger, more impactful shock wave boom, and its engine is on top of the plane rather than underneath it, a design choice that sends the majority of remaining shock wave impacts upward toward the sky, rather than down toward the ground.The X-59 is still just an experimental jet. It's a single-seater, it's about twice as long as an F-16 fighter jet, and it can cruise at around 925 miles per hours, which is Mach 1.4.It's hoped that this new design will allow for the creation of future supersonic jetliners, though, as being able to traverse oceans twice as fast would bring massive economic benefits, in terms of shipping people, but also all kinds of goods. Being able to use these aircraft fully, at their full speed, over land and to and from any airport, would likewise make them more versatile and introduce new benefits and, hopefully, favorable economics.Worth noting here is that this jet is a descendent of that first Bell X-1 plane that broke the sound barrier in 1947; NASA's X-planes are innovative models meant to push the boundaries of what's currently possible, and the X-59 is just a more modern version of that initial X-1 conception in many ways.That said, the X-59 has only been successfully flown at low speeds and altitudes at this point. It got a lot of press at the end of October 2025 for successfully completing its first flight, which shows it can fly and land, which is good. But its inaugural flight stuck with a low altitude and just 240 miles per hour; really slow for a jet, and too low for a commercial airliner.The folks behind this project have also said that while they have every reason to believe this design will both work and create a far less impactful sonic boom, they don't yet know if that boom will actually be tolerable for people on the ground. Simulating such things is different from the experience of them, and they won't know until they power the thing all the way up and have it break the sound barrier whether the sonic thump will be barely noticeable and tolerable for folks near airports and flight paths, or if it will be better, but still not good enough to make this a viable alternative to existing jets.There are other entities working on similar things right now, including a company called Boom Supersonic that has already flown a piloted demonstration aircraft, the XB-1, at supersonic speeds—Mac 1.122, which is about 750 mph—at an altitude of over 35,000 feet; the first time a non-government-affiliated aircraft has done so.That was back in March of 2024, and the company plans to build a commercial supersonic aircraft that will carry between 64 and 80 passengers at Mach 1.7, on hundreds of global routes; they say they already have a large number of orders for this passenger aircraft they intend to build, and they say to begin with, they'll be able to produce 66 of them per year from their factory in North Carolina. They say that they'll have the first full-scale prototype of that passenger aircraft, called the Overture, in 2027, and they're aiming to put that craft into service beginning in 2029 or 2030.They're not the only private company aiming to produce supersonic aircraft for various purposes, either. The promise of moving people and things around the world, faster than most of today's options can manage, and in many cases far faster, is still tantalizing for many industries, so long as regulatory, safety, and technological hurdles can be traversed. For most of these private companies, their innovation seems to be mostly in price and scale, not reducing the boom, but some have also claimed that their sonic booms are more moderated; there's also a good chance findings from the NASA X project will translate over to the commercial world in due time, if these companies survive, blending those innovations.It's an interesting moment in this space, then, in part because it seems like supersonic flight is appealing again, to some, at least, after a long period of dashed hopes—that dashing partly the consequence of flaws in earlier models, and headline-grabbing crashes that ruined a lot of appetites for the option.But also because we could see modern technologies, from sensors to propulsion systems to manufacturing capacities applied to this vehicle type, which could ease a lot of the issues that made the Concordes and Tu-144s non-workable the first time around, and could make this type of transport and travel cheaper, too, though probably not until mid-century at the earliest, according to current timelines.Show Noteshttps://arstechnica.com/space/2025/10/nasa-test-flight-seeks-to-help-bring-commercial-supersonic-travel-back/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boomhttps://www.wired.com/story/nasas-quiet-supersonic-jet-takes-flight/https://www.sofeminine.co.uk/back-in-4-years-your-london-new-york-time-slashed-by-3-hours-as-60-80-seat-supersonic-jet-nears/https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nasa-takes-step-closer-launching-quiet-supersonic-jets-127036299https://boomsupersonic.com/https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/lowsup.htmlhttps://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/supersonic-flight/https://www.spikeaerospace.com/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_aircrafthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transporthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_speed This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

Mary welcomes Michael Johnson, president of Slavic Gospel Association to enlighten us about the tremendous needs in the former Soviet Union. SGA works with 13 nations to bring light and hope to those who have never heard the good news through various outreaches. Having begun nearly 100 years ago by a man who immigrated to the States from Belarus, SGA has been faithful to put deeds to the Word and bring truth to all ages. We talk about the orphan crisis, in particular the older teens who age out of the orphanages, only to find themselves the target of sex traffickers and the slave trade. These teens who have never known hope, often just wander aimlessly as young adults. Russia has the 3rd highest suicide rate in the world among adolescents. Who will give them a chance for a normal life, and what are the challenges to giving them the gospel? What is the state of their hearts after such a rough beginning? SGA has partnered with 6300 churches to visit these kids and develop relationships with the older teens. We talk about Siberia, Ukraine, even Israel and how to help these Russian kids. An eye-opener for us in the west.   Stand Up For The Truth Videos: https://rumble.com/user/CTRNOnline & https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgQQSvKiMcglId7oGc5c46A

Reagan's Pragmatic Cold War Victory, Don Regan's Disastrous Tenure, and the Iran-Contra Near-Death Experience. Max Boot discusses how Ronald Reagan had no patience for communism, and in his first term, his policy toward the Soviet Union was somewhat unsuccessful, though it improved in 1985 with the ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan's genius was recognizing that Gorbachev was a different communist leader he could "do business with," and they established a rapport that allowed them to constructively reduce nuclear armaments and peacefully end the Cold War. The transition into Reagan's second term saw a catastrophic personnel decision when Reagan allowed Jim Baker and Don Regan to swap jobs. Regan lacked political instincts and presided over problems that culminated in the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan was highly exercised by American hostages seized by Hezbollah, and National Security Advisor Bud McFarlane suggested shipping weapons to supposed Iranian moderates in exchange for hostage releases, which was a fiasco. The scandal intensified when McFarlane's successor, John Poindexter, and Oliver North diverted the profits from the weapon sales to fund the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua. This incident could have led to impeachment, but Reagan's salvation was his reputation for being hands-off and disengaged. Reagan also faced criticism over a human rights double standard, speaking eloquently about violations behind the Iron Curtain but being less exercised about apartheid in South Africa.

When 21-year old college dropout Christopher Boyce got a job as a clerk at the TRW Defense and Space Systems complex in Redondo Beach, he was given access to some of the country's biggest government secrets. And under a Robin Hood-like ethos, he and his childhood pal Andrew Daulton Lee began sharing those secrets with the Soviet Union. Their story lived on in the 1985 film “The Falcon and the Snowman,” but their friendship had a much shorter shelf life.