Podcasts about Soviet Union

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

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin answer four Pump Head questions drawn from last Sunday's Quah post on the @mindpumpmedia Instagram page.  Mind Pump Fit Tip: The 4 Most Common Nutrient Deficiencies, the Symptoms & What to Eat to Solve Them. (1:42) Craved food and meal balance. (22:43) Fueling your movement. (28:18) How about a heads-up next time? (37:28) Mind Pump Group Coaching: Fat Loss and Muscle-Building. (42:35) Life wisdom. (44:26) Soviet Union contributions to fitness. (48:07) Fun Facts with Justin: Hookworms. (52:15) #Quah question #1 – What's the best way to set up the width of your grips for bench and shoulder press? (55:24) #Quah question #2 – What is the best way to detox/cleanse after a weekend of drinking? (59:11) #Quah question #3 – Is it best to run a small deficit when running MAPS Symmetry? (1:01:39) #Quah question #4 – When I squat heavy, my right leg (IT Band) becomes constantly sore and stiff. Is this a form or mobility issue? What can I do to fix this? (1:02:31) Related Links/Products Mentioned Train the Trainer Webinar Series  Visit NED for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! ** Code MINDPUMP at checkout for 20% off ** Mind Pump Group Coaching May Special: MAPS 15 Performance or RGB Bundle 50% off! ** Code MAY50 at checkout ** Eating craved foods with meals lessens cravings, boosts weight loss Walking 8,000 steps just 1-2 days a week linked to significant health benefits Justin's Road to 315 Push Press Mind Pump #2600: Mike O'Hearn Secrets to Soviet Strength Training Helminthic Treatment for Crohn's Disease Visit Butcher Box for this month's exclusive Mind Pump offer!  ** For a limited time, new Butcher Box members who sign up through Mind Pump will receive: $20 OFF their first box, free chicken breast, ground beef, OR salmon in every box for a whole year! A curated box pre-filled with Mind Pump's favorite cuts — no guesswork, just great meat. ** Visit Transcend for this month's exclusive Mind Pump offer! ** 25% off all GLP-1s – This includes the GLP-1 probiotic which people can order through their specialist. ** MAPS Prime Pro Webinar Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Layne Norton, Ph.D. (@biolayne) Instagram Tony Robbins (@tonyrobbins) Instagram  

Jim Gilbert seems to have stumbled into some of the biggest faith stories of the 20th Century. And it hasn't slowed down in the 21st! From small town Appalachia, to South Africa, the Soviet Union and the Vatican, this gung-ho Pentecostal/Baptist kid found his way into a group of serious world-changers. And they're just getting […]

Savage exposes how Bernie Sanders and other anti-American Democrats must be defeated by American patriots. He calls for an investigation into Sanders' background and his visits to the Soviet Union. Savage discusses Sanders' radical proposals and the growing influence of leftwing groups like Antifa, calling for it to be labeled a terrorist group. He speculates as to why there is a resurgence of socialism in the Trump era. He then warns that the United Kingdom is bellwether for what could happen to America. Listeners tell Savage how London, Munich, and other European cities have been transformed by communists using radical Islamists.

Day 1,190.Today, as Ukraine reels from yet another record drone bombardment, we look at warnings that Russia is massing 50,000 troops near Sumy ahead of a new offensive. Plus we bring you some of the top lines from Chancellor Friederich Merz's press conference with Vlodomyr Zelensky, where he announced that Germany would help Ukraine build long-range missiles. We'll also be hearing Dom's interview with Estonia's defence minister about Moscow's shadow fleet and how to protect critical infrastructure from Russia. And Roland Oliphant reports from Armenia on the dilemma facing small former Soviet Union states in the midst of what some politicians there are describing as a geopolitical earthquake. Contributors:Venetia Rainey (Co-host Battle Lines podcast). @@venetiarainey on X.Joe Barnes (Brussels Correspondent). @@Barnes_Joe on X.Roland Oliphant (Chief Foreign Analyst). @RolandOliphant on X.Dom Nicholls (Associate Editor for Defence). @DomNicholls on X.With thanks to Hanno Pevkur (Minister of Defence of Estonia).SIGN UP TO THE NEW ‘UKRAINE: THE LATEST' WEEKLY NEWSLETTER:https://secure.telegraph.co.uk/customer/secure/newsletter/ukraine/ Each week, Dom Nicholls and Francis Dearnley answer your questions, provide recommended reading, and give exclusive analysis and behind-the-scenes insights – plus maps of the frontlines and diagrams of weapons to complement our daily reporting. It's free for everyone, including non-subscribers.Content Referenced:Ukraine launches massive drone attack on Russiahttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/05/28/ukraine-launches-massive-drone-attack-on-russia/Ukraine War latest newshttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/05/28/russia-ukraine-zelensky-putin-war-latest-news529/NOW AVAILABLE IN NEW LANGUAGES:The Telegraph has launched translated versions of Ukraine: The Latest in Ukrainian and Russian, making its reporting accessible to audiences on both sides of the battle lines and across the wider region, including Central Asia and the Caucasus. Just search Україна: Останні Новини (Ukr) and Украина: Последние Новости (Ru) on your on your preferred podcast app to find them.Listen here: https://linktr.ee/ukrainethelatestSubscribe: telegraph.co.uk/ukrainethelatestEmail: ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Jim Gilbert seems to have stumbled into some of the biggest faith stories of the 20th Century. And it hasn't slowed down in the 21st! From small town Appalachia, to South Africa, the Soviet Union and the Vatican, this gung-ho Pentecostal/Baptist kid found his way into a group of serious world-changers. And they're just getting […]

In April, we ran Episode One of our narrative podcast series Escalation on this feed. On Tuesday and Thursday afternoons for the next few weeks, we'll be posting the rest of the series, starting today with Episode Two.Escalation is a multi-part narrative podcast co-hosted by Lawfare's Managing Director Tyler McBrien and Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina, covering the history of U.S.-Ukrainian relations from the time of Ukrainian independence through the present. You can subscribe to the whole series, as well as our other narrative series, on the Lawfare Presents channel.In Episode Two: No Guarantees: Newly-independent Ukraine inherits a nuclear arsenal from the former Soviet Union. So the United States, Russia, and Ukraine craft a high-stakes deal to disarm Ukraine in exchange for national security protection. Some see it as a diplomatic success, but for others, it's a betrayal.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Superpowers for Good should not be considered investment advice. Seek counsel before making investment decisions. When you purchase an item, launch a campaign or create an investment account after clicking a link here, we may earn a fee. Engage to support our work.Watch the show on television by downloading the e360tv channel app to your Roku, AppleTV or AmazonFireTV. You can also see it on YouTube.Devin: What is your superpower?Prof. Alan: Creative problem-solvingThe world doesn't change on its own—people with vision, grit and creativity drive progress. Few embody this more than Prof. Alan Arthur Tratner, who helped organize the very first Earth Day in 1970 and has since built a global legacy supporting green entrepreneurs and inventors.Alan's work reminds me that bold action in the face of crisis can spark lasting transformation. In today's episode, he shared the story of rushing to the oil-soaked beaches of Santa Barbara after the catastrophic 1969 spill, an experience that moved him to tears and propelled him into environmental activism. “I broke down, fell on my knees and cried... and then I just said we've got to stop this. We have to find a way to do it,” Alan recalled.That determination led him to found Green2Gold, a unique non-profit incubator that has nurtured over 100,000 inventors, entrepreneurs and more than 300 non-profits focused on environmental and social responsibility. Alan's approach is rooted in the belief that innovation can solve the problems it helped create. “We invented our way into this mess, we could innovate and invent our way out,” he explained.One of the most compelling aspects of Alan's work is his early embrace of investment crowdfunding. He recognized that democratizing access to capital could accelerate the development of climate solutions. “Equity crowdfunding was the democratization of investing. No longer did you have to be wealthy or be in power... anyone in the world, accredited or unaccredited, could invest in an American company,” Alan said.Through Green2Gold's programs, Alan continues to champion breakthrough technologies in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture and disaster recovery. His “Build Back Green” project, for instance, emerged in response to the devastating wildfires in Lahaina and now provides a blueprint for rebuilding communities in sustainable, resilient ways.If you're inspired by Alan's vision or want to learn more about Green2Gold's work, visit green2gold.org. For entrepreneurs and inventors seeking support—or anyone interested in investing in a better world—Alan and Green2Gold are showing what's possible when we put creativity and collective action to work for the planet.tl;dr:Alan Tratner shared his journey from the first Earth Day to launching the Green2Gold impact incubator.He described the critical role of innovation and entrepreneurship in addressing environmental crises worldwide.Alan emphasized the power of equity crowdfunding to democratize investment for green ventures and climate solutions.He highlighted the importance of perseverance, creativity and passion for lasting impact in nonprofit and business work.Alan offered actionable advice for aspiring changemakers to lead with purpose and build sustainable ventures.How to Develop Creative Problem-Solving As a SuperpowerAlan's superpower lies in the fusion of creativity, scientific thinking and practical experience. As he described, “I think that creative spark, that passion, you know, I try to give our entrepreneurs and our nonprofits the same feelings about... inventing in the fields that are going to make a difference.” He credits his background in science, art and design, as well as years of nonprofit leadership and invention, for giving him a “quiver of superpowers” that enable him to help others become problem solvers and critical thinkers.Illustrative Story:Alan shared how he has supported over 315 nonprofits and 100,000 entrepreneurs through Green2Gold by applying his expertise in nonprofit management, invention and funding. For years, he persisted with a wind turbine invention that was ahead of its time, waiting 45 years for the right moment to see it realized. He emphasized that passion and perseverance are crucial. “If you quit, you can't win,” Alan said, reflecting on the decades he devoted to innovations that now have renewed relevance.Actionable Tips for Developing Creative Problem-Solving:Treat your venture or nonprofit as a passionate career, not just a hobbyPut your whole self—brain, energy and opportunities—into your missionEmbrace challenges and persist through setbacks; don't give up if progress is slowSurround yourself with people who share your passion and driveThink entrepreneurially, even in nonprofit work, to build sustainability and legacyBy following Alan's example and advice, you can make creative problem-solving a skill. With practice and effort, you could make it a superpower that enables you to do more good in the world.Remember, however, that research into success suggests that building on your own superpowers is more important than creating new ones or overcoming weaknesses. You do you!Guest ProfileProf. Alan Arthur Tratner (Earthling):Founder /Chairman of  Green2Gold, Green2Gold global impact Incubator---501 c 3About Green2Gold global impact Incubator---501 c 3: Helped found Earth Day and the first UN International Conference on the Human Environment. Pioneered impact incubation for over 55 years in green tech, sustainability, and regenerative solutions. Leading the transition to sustainability and a global, inclusive green economy. Supported over 100,000 members and 315 socially and environmentally responsible nonprofits.Website: Green2Gold.orgBiographical Information: Alan Arthur Tratner, is the International Director of Green2Gold and has served as the President of the Inventors Workshop International and the Entrepreneur's Workshop, Director of the Small Business Entrepreneurship Center in California, a SCORE (US SBA) consultant, and was publisher of the Lightbulb Journal and INVENT! magazines. He is an inventor and serial entrepreneur, with 13 inventions/patents. He has been dubbed the “Minister of Ideas” by the media and has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Inc., Entrepreneur, Business Week, TIME, USA Today, America Online Forum, NPR, and has appeared on OPRAH, CNN, Good Morning America, and CNBC. Alan has mentored and assisted thousands of green technology, sustainable ecology and energy companies and inventors. He was a former Professor of Environment and Energy, participated in the First International United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm Sweden, was staff member of Environmental Quality Magazine and helped establish Earth Day. He founded the Environmental Education Group Foundation with many supporters, including Nobel prize winner Dennis Gabor. Alan traveled the USA conducting the Ultimate Crisis and Solutions for Survival seminars, led an environmental and alternative energy delegation to the former Soviet Union for the Citizen's Ambassador Program. He was editor of Energies Journal for the Solar Energy Society of America, published the Geothermal Energy magazine and Geothermal World Directory. In the 1990's he became Director of the Green Business Conference of the ECO EXPO, created the Eco Inventors and Eco Entrepreneurs Workshops, and the New Environmental Technologies Exhibits. In 2012, Alan was inducted into the International Green Industries Hall of Fame and honored with Lifetime Achievement.Linkedin: linkedin.com/in/prof-alan-tratner-3935506/Support Our SponsorsOur generous sponsors make our work possible, serving impact investors, social entrepreneurs, community builders and diverse founders. Today's advertisers include FundingHope, RedLineSafety, and Ovanova PET. Learn more about advertising with us here.Max-Impact MembersThe following Max-Impact Members provide valuable financial support:Carol Fineagan, Independent Consultant | Lory Moore, Lory Moore Law | Marcia Brinton, High Desert Gear | Paul Lovejoy, Stakeholder Enterprise | Pearl Wright, Global Changemaker | Ralf Mandt, Next Pitch | Scott Thorpe, Philanthropist | Matthew Mead, Hempitecture | Michael Pratt, Qnetic | Sharon Samjitsingh, Health Care Originals | Add Your Name HereUpcoming SuperCrowd Event CalendarIf a location is not noted, the events below are virtual.Impact Cherub Club Meeting hosted by The Super Crowd, Inc., a public benefit corporation, on June 17, 2025, at 1:00 PM Eastern. Each month, the Club meets to review new offerings for investment consideration and to conduct due diligence on previously screened deals. To join the Impact Cherub Club, become an Impact Member of the SuperCrowd.SuperCrowdHour, June 18, 2025, at 12:00 PM Eastern. Jason Fishman, Co-Founder and CEO of Digital Niche Agency (DNA), will lead a session on "Crowdfund Like a Pro: Insider Marketing Secrets from Jason Fishman." He'll reveal proven strategies and marketing insights drawn from years of experience helping successful crowdfunding campaigns. Whether you're a founder planning a raise or a supporter of innovative startups, you'll gain actionable tips to boost visibility, drive engagement, and hit your funding goals. Don't miss it!Superpowers for Good Live Pitch – June 25, 2025, at 8:00 PM Eastern - Apply by June 6, 2025, to pitch your active Regulation Crowdfunding campaign live on Superpowers for Good—the e360tv show where impact meets capital. Selected founders will gain national exposure, connect with investors, and compete for prizes. To qualify, you must be raising via a FINRA-registered portal or broker-dealer and align with NC3's Community Capital Principles. Founders from underrepresented communities are especially encouraged to apply. Don't miss this chance to fuel your mission and grow your impact!SuperCrowd25, August 21st and 22nd: This two-day virtual event is an annual tradition but with big upgrades for 2025! We'll be streaming live across the web and on TV via e360tv. Soon, we'll open a process for nominating speakers. Check back!Community Event CalendarSuccessful Funding with Karl Dakin, Tuesdays at 10:00 AM ET - Click on Events.African Diaspora Investment Symposium 2025 (ADIS25), Wednesday–Friday, May 28–30, 2025, at George Washington University, Washington, D.C., USA.Devin Thorpe is featured in a free virtual masterclass series hosted by Irina Portnova titled Break Free, Elevate Your Money Mindset & Call In Overflow, focused on transforming your relationship with money through personal stories and practical insights. June 8-21, 2025.Regulated Investment Crowdfunding Summit 2025, Crowdfunding Professional Association, Washington DC, October 21-22, 2025.Call for community action:Please show your support for a tax credit for investments made via Regulation Crowdfunding, benefiting both the investors and the small businesses that receive the investments. Learn more here.If you would like to submit an event for us to share with the 9,000+ changemakers, investors and entrepreneurs who are members of the SuperCrowd, click here.We use AI to help us write compelling recaps of each episode. Get full access to Superpowers for Good at www.superpowers4good.com/subscribe

Jim Gilbert seems to have stumbled into some of the biggest faith stories of the 20th Century. And it hasn't slowed down in the 21st! From small town Appalachia, to South Africa, the Soviet Union and the Vatican, this gung-ho Pentecostal/Baptist kid found his way into a group of serious world-changers. And they're just getting […]

Thanks to the endless “War Against Terror,” the US Government promoted methods of torture, including some borrowed from the sadistic torturers of the former Soviet Union. Congress stood by and let it happen.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/we-never-got-torture-congress

Thanks to the endless “War Against Terror,” the US Government promoted methods of torture, including some borrowed from the sadistic torturers of the former Soviet Union. Congress stood by and let it happen.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/we-never-got-torture-congress

What separates the elite from the exceptional? Is greatness just talent — or something deeper, more deliberate?In this episode of Performers, we explore the mind of Garry Kasparov — chess grandmaster, world champion, and one of the most formidable strategic thinkers of all time. His book How Life Imitates Chess is more than a treatise on the game; it's a playbook for decision-making under pressure, self-awareness, and long-term performance.Join Dr. Duncan Simpson and Dr. Greg Young as they decode Kasparov's lessons — from growing up in the Soviet Union to battling IBM's Deep Blue — and uncover what it truly means to lead, think, and perform at the highest level.♟️ Why talent is nothing without environment

In a multipolar world where America wields less relative power, the United States can no longer get away with poor statecraft. To understand how the US can approach future national security challenges, I spoke with Dennis Ross, a senior US diplomat and the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His new book, Statecraft 2.0: What America Needs to Lead in a Multipolar World (Oxford University Press, 2025) offers a revised toolkit for US foreign policy and global leadership. The United States may still be the world's strongest country, but it now faces real challenges at both a global and regional level. The unipolar world which was dominated by America after the Cold War is gone. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is both a military and economic competitor and it is actively challenging the norms and institutions that the US used to shape an international order during and after the Cold War. Directly and indirectly, it has partners trying to undo the American-dominated order, with Russia seeking to extinguish Ukraine, and Iran trying to undermine American presence, influence, and any set of rules for the Middle East that it does not dominate. The failures of American policy in Afghanistan and Iraq have weakened the domestic consensus for a US leadership role internationally. Traditions in US foreign policy, especially the American sense of exceptionalism, have at different points justified both withdrawal and international activism. Iraq and Afghanistan fed the instinct to withdraw and to end the “forever wars.” But the folly of these US interventions did not necessarily mean that all use of force to back diplomacy or specific political ends was wrong; rather it meant in these cases, the Bush Administration failed in the most basic task of good statecraft: namely, marrying objectives and means. Nothing more clearly defines effective statecraft than identifying well-considered goals and then knowing how to use all the tools of statecraft—diplomatic, economic, military, intelligence, information, cyber, scientific, education—to achieve them. But all too often American presidents have adopted goals that were poorly defined and not thought through. In Statecraft 2.0, Dennis Ross explains why failing to marry objectives and means has happened so often in American foreign policy. He uses historical examples to illustrate the factors that account for this, including political pressures, weak understanding of the countries where the US has intervened, changing objectives before achieving those that have been established, relying too much on ourselves and too little on allies and partners. To be fair, there have not only been failures, there have been successes as well. Ross uses case studies to look more closely at the circumstances in which Administrations have succeeded and failed in marrying objectives and means. He distills the lessons from good cases of statecraft—German unification in NATO, the first Gulf War, the surge in Iraq 2007-8—and bad cases of statecraft—going to war in Iraq 2003, and the Obama policy toward Syria. Based on those lessons, he develops a framework for applying today a statecraft approach to our policy toward China, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The book concludes with how a smart statecraft approach would shape policy toward the new national security challenges of climate, pandemics, and cyber. Dr. Andrew O. Pace is a historian of the US in the world who specializes in the moral fog of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

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

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

My Russia reveals CNN's Jill Dougherty's transformative journey from a Cold War-era obsession with Russia to witnessing firsthand the rise of Vladimir Putin and the unraveling of a nation she grew to love. At the height of the Cold War, as a high school freshman, CNN's Jill Dougherty developed an obsession with Russia. Over the next half-century, she studied in Leningrad, traveled across the Soviet Union, lived in Moscow, and reported on the presidencies of Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and Vladimir Putin. Jill's life, and Putin's, intersected. They studied at the same Russian university; Jill was named CNN Moscow Bureau Chief just as Putin began his rise to power. She knew he was a former KGB officer, but she also believed he was an economic reformer. As Putin tightened his grip on the media, she changed her mind. In 2022, reporting from Moscow as Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, she was convinced the leader with whom she once had sympathized was a tyrant threatening to destroy a country she had come to love. My Russia charts Russia's evolution through the eyes of an American with rare insight into Russia, its people, and its leaders.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-unplugged-totally-uncut--994165/support.

At the end of ww1, the vast but ailing Russian empire collapsed. What followed was regicide, civil war and famine. But just a generation later, the world had changed. Russia, now part of the Soviet Union found itself uniquely positioned to itself on the global scene in a way it had done before. In this episode I speak with Russian born historian Sergey Rachenko, he Wilson E. Schmidt Distinguished Professor at the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs about his groundbreaking book To Run the World: The Kremlin's Cold War Bid for Global Power. We discuss the motivations and aspirations of Stalin, Krushchev and their successors as we learn how the events of the last century still cast a shadow today. Guest: Sergey S. Radchenko Music: Pixabay  

Once again highlighting the challenge to maintaining our supply chain plus keeping the power grid in function is the topic of discussion. That in addition to exactly how the Soviet Union came crashing down.

What has gone wrong with the left—and what leftists must do if they want to change politics, ethics, and minds. Leftists have long taught that people in the West must take responsibility for centuries of classism, racism, colonialism, patriarchy, and other gross injustices. Of course, right-wingers constantly ridicule this claim for its “wokeness.”  In Coming Clean: The Rise of Critical Theory and the Future of the Left ( MIT Press, 2025), Eric Heinze rejects the idea that we should be less woke. In fact, we need more wokeness, but of a new kind. Yes, we must teach about these bleak pasts, but we must also educate the public about the left's own support for regimes that damaged and destroyed millions of lives for over a century—Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao Zedong in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, or the Kim dynasty in North Korea. Criticisms of Western wrongdoing are certainly important, yet Heinze explains that leftists have rarely engaged in the kinds of open and public self-scrutiny that they demand from others. Citing examples as different as the Ukraine war, LGBTQ+ people in Cuba, the concept of “hatred,” and the problem of leftwing antisemitism, Heinze explains why and how the left must change its memory politics if it is to claim any ethical high ground. Eric Heinze is Professor of Law and Humanities at Queen Mary University of London. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

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

Speaking across the decades, from the 1960s to the 2010s, Ram Dass shares his insights into responding to suffering, the meaning of service, and the confluence of social action and spiritual work.The Ram Dass community gathers regularly to engage in meaningful discussions about the podcast. We invite you to join us and share your curiosities, insights, and wisdom. Sign up for the General Fellowship to receive event invitations directly in your inbox.This episode of Here and Now is a compilation of Ram Dass talking about service and social action across the decades.We begin in 1969, during a time of significant cultural change. A time where the people of the United States found themselves in the middle of the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-war protests, and the rise of Women's Liberation. Ram Dass explores the concept of social responsibility and talks about why protesting should come from a place not of anger, but of love.Next, we move to 1983. The media landscape has transformed in the wake of the Iran hostage crisis, political paradigms shift as Ronald Reagan makes his way to power, and communities all over the world begin to feel the impact of the growing AIDS epidemic. Ram Dass talks about learning to trust one's intuitive inner voice when it comes to responding to suffering, and how we can bring together social action and spiritual work.Two years later, it is 1985 and the world has rapidly evolved. The Soviet Union has become a global threat. The nightly news shows the Apartheid regime in South Africa violently cracking down on Civil Rights activists, while the Reagan administration stands by, focused instead on rolling back civil liberties at home in the United States. Ram Dass offers perspective on navigating these challenges with an open heart. He explores the difference between dharma and seva, and why service requires us to embrace paradox in our lives.It is 1993, technology is transforming the world and how we engage with it. Ram Dass explores how being too attached to the fruits of our actions can be detrimental to social action work, leading activists to burn out quickly.We end our journey across the decades in 2018, in the middle of the first Trump administration in America. Wars rage on, and civil liberty is at risk across the globe. How do we oppose this skillfully and with an open heart? Ram Dass talks about how karma yoga is the key to finding the right balance between working on yourself and taking action for the benefit of others. Sponsors of this Episode:Ram Dass Here & Now is brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/ramdass and get on your way to being your best self.This show is also sponsored by Magic Mind, a matcha-based energy shot infused with nootropics and adaptogens designed to crush procrastination, brain fog, & fatigue. You have a limited offer you can use now, that gets you up to 48% off your first subscription or 20% off one-time purchases with the code RAMDASS at www.magicmind.com/ramdass.Reunion is offering $250 off any stay to the Love, Serve, Remember community. Simply use the code “BeHere250” when booking. Disconnect from the world so you can reconnect with yourself at Reunion. Hotel | www.reunionhotelandwellness.com Retreats | www.reunionexperience.org“So it really requires, it seems to me, staying open from moment to moment when you're doing social action. And if you're too obsessed with the goal, you lose it. If you're too obsessed with the goal, since in much action you don't get what you want, you'll burn out much sooner. And so, the injunction of the Bhagavad Gita, which says be not identified with being the actor, be not attached to the fruits of the action, and yet, the action happens.” – Ram DassSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

BBC Defence Correspondent Jonathan Beale speaks to Dovilė Šakalienė, Lithuania's Defence Minister.The Baltic nation, along with its neighbours Latvia and Estonia, share a border with Russia, and have nervously watched the invasion of Ukraine, fearing they could be next.All three countries have had turbulent relationships with their much larger neighbour, Russia. They were annexed by the Soviet Union during the Second World War, and were subject to decades of rule from Moscow up until the end of the Cold War.In 2004, Lithuania joined both the European Union and NATO, and just over a decade later, adopted the Euro as its currency. But despite looking westwards, the country has always kept one eye on developments over its eastern border in Russia.Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian region of Crimea in 2014 set off alarm bells in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, and when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia began in 2022, Lithuania and its neighbours began fearing - and preparing - for the worst.The Interview brings you conversations with people shaping our world, from all over the world. The best interviews from the BBC. You can listen on the BBC World Service, Mondays and Wednesdays at 0700 GMT. Or you can listen to The Interview as a podcast, out twice a week on BBC Sounds, Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.Presenter: Jonathan Beale Producer: Ben Cooper Editor: Richard Fenton-Smith

I had mutiple people ask me to have Victoria on my show. Sol being the smart person I did and it was epicA well-meaning teacher pulled me aside, trying to protect me from being disappointed… Today I use English daily to empower others on their path from pain to peace and purpose, and from poverty to prosperity.Hi, I am Victoria Rader, or simply Vica, I was born in Ukraine, and the Soviet Union did not make it easy or possible to leave the country. Yet the regime could not stop me nor my Ukrainian freedom seeking genes from dreaming, creating, pursuing, and ultimately proving that everything is possible.Through God's grace and guidance, I found it possible to travel the world and see over 40 countries. I found it possible to home-school my two children while becoming one of the top 1% real estate agents in the United States during the market crash of 2009. I found it possible to create YU2SHINE through struggles and triumphs of marriage, child-raising, business-building, tragic losses & moments of divine grace.It is all being made possible as I daily aspire to live through complete surrender to LOVE, Life Originating Vibrant Emotion (Energy-in-motion)."My favorite part of Quantum Freedom is the monthly program I'm in Business. It's helping me release unknown blocks and develop a higher understanding of who I am and how I want to show up in the world and serve more fully and I tell people all of the time to join us!""When I met Victoria Rader of YU2SHINE… I immediately felt a deep connection and a desire to get to know her better. The Everyone Communicates, Few Connect class group, confirmed my response. Victoria taught with clarity and understanding.""My experience with Vica has not only helped me to achieve my goals, but more importantly, it has enabled me to discover who I am and enjoy life more. Vica's guidance, support, and honest feedback taught me to embrace my unique approach to life and live in a way that truly brings me joy.""Vica is a warm, caring, charismatic teacher who loves what she does – one will come out of the class a better and much more improved individual! A true leader is someone who at the end of the day makes another person feel much better about themselves, and raises them up – that is true success!"yu2shine.com

  Last time we spoke about the February 26th incident. Within the turbulent “ government of assassination” period of 1936 Japan, a faction of discontented junior officers, known as the Kodoha, believed that their emperor, Hirohito, was being manipulated by corrupt politicians. In a desperate bid for what they termed a "Showa Restoration," they meticulously plotted a coup d'état. On February 26, they launched a rebellion in Tokyo, attempting to assassinate key figures they deemed responsible for undermining the emperor's authority. The young officers executed coordinated attacks on prominent leaders, resulting in several deaths, while hoping to seize control of the Imperial Palace. However, their plan unraveled when their actions met with unexpected resistance, and they failed to secure strategic locations. Dark snow blanketed the city as Hirohito, outraged by the violence, quickly moved to suppress the uprising, which ultimately led to the downfall of the Kodoha faction and solidified the military's grip on power, ushering in a new era marked by militarism and radicalism.   #151 The Suiyuan Operation 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 we last left off with the February 26th incident breaking out in Japan, but now I would like to return to China. Now we spoke a little bit about some influential Japanese politicians in the previous episode. Prime Minister Satio Makoto oversaw Japan from May 1932 to July 1934, succeeded by Prime Minister Keisuke Okada from July 1934 to March 1936. The foreign policy of Japan towards China during the Saitō and Okada administrations exhibited a notable paradox, characterized by two conflicting elements. On one hand, Foreign Minister Hirota championed a diplomatic approach that emphasized friendship, cooperation, and accommodation with China. On the other hand, the military actively undermined the authority of the Nationalist government in northern China, creating a significant rift between diplomatic rhetoric and military action.    The Okada cabinet then endorsed the Army Ministry's "Outline of Policy to Deal with North China" on January 13, 1936. This policy document explicitly proposed the eventual detachment of five provinces, Hubei, Chahar, Shanxi, Suiyuan, and Shandong from the Nationalist government in Nanking. The approval of this outline marked a pivotal moment, as it represented the first official government endorsement of the military's longstanding agenda and underscored the army's evolution from a mere rogue entity operating in the region to the de facto authority dictating the course of Japan's policy towards China. Despite this, on January 22, during the 68th Diet session, Hirota reaffirmed his dedication to fostering better ties with China, to which a representative from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded positively. The Nationalist government in Nanjing also expressed interest in engaging in formal negotiations. However, this diplomatic initiative quickly faltered, and the expected discussions in Nanjing never took place. Shortly thereafter, a mutiny by young army officers on February 26, 1936, led to the fall of the Okada cabinet. Following Prince Konoe Fumimaro's refusal of the imperial mandate to form a new government, Hirota stepped in to establish a cabinet on March 9. General Terauchi Hisaichi was appointed as the Minister of the Army, Admiral Nagano Osami took charge of the Navy Ministry, and Baba Eiichi became the finance minister. Hirota briefly served as foreign minister until Arita Hachirö, who had just submitted his credentials as ambassador to China on March 6, returned to Japan. The Hirota Koki cabinet, established immediately following the February 26 incident further entrenched military influence in politics while allowing interservice rivalries to impede national objectives. In May 1936, Hirota, influenced by army and navy ministers, reinstated the practice of appointing military ministers solely from the ranks of high-ranking active-duty officers. He believed this would prevent associations with the discredited Imperial Way faction from regaining power. By narrowing the candidate pool and enhancing the army's power relative to the prime minister, Hirota's decision set the stage for army leaders to leverage this advantage to overthrow Admiral Yonai's cabinet in July 1940. Arita began his new job by meeting with Foreign Minister Chang Chen while hearing views from the Kwantung Army chief of staff General, Itagaki Seishiro. Yes, our old friend received a lot of promotions. Itagaki had this to say about the Kwantung Army's policy in China "The primary aim of Japan's foreign policy, is the sound development of Manchukuo based upon the principle of the indivisibility of Japan and Manchukuo. If, as is probable, the existing situation continues, Japan is destined sooner or later to clash with the Soviet Union, and the attitude of China at that time will gravely influence operations [against the Soviet Union]." The Kwantung Army's was growing more and more nervous about the USSR following its 7th comintern congress held in July and August of 1935. There it publicly designated Japan, Germany and Poland as its main targets of comintern actions. Japanese intelligence in the Red Army also knew the Soviets were gradually planning to expand the military strength so they could face a simultaneous west and east front war. This was further emboldened by the latest USSR 5 year plan. Alongside the growing Red northern menace, the CCP issued on August 1st a declaration calling upon the Nationalist Government to end their civil war so they could oppose Japan. By this time the CCP was reaching the end of its Long March and organizing a new base of operations in Yenan in northern Shanxi. The developments by the USSR and CCP had a profound effect on Japan's foreign policy in China. The Kwantung Army believed a war with the USSR was imminent and began to concentrate its main force along the border of Manchukuo. The Kwantung Army's plan in the case of war was to seize Vladivostok while advancing motorized units towards Ulan Bator in Outer Mongolia, hoping to threaten the Trans-Siberian Railway near Lake Baikal. Their intelligence indicated the USSR could muster a maximum of 250,000 troops in eastern Siberia and that Japan could deal with them with a force two-thirds of that number. The IJA at that point had inferior air forces and armaments, thus urgent funding was needed. The Kwantung Army proposed that forces in the home islands should be reduced greatly so all could be concentrated in Manchuria. To increase funding so Kwantung leadership proposed doing away with special allowances for Japanese officials in Manchuria and reorganizing the Japanese economic structure. The Kwantung leaders also knew the submarine base at Vladivostok posed a threat to Japanese shipping so the IJN would have to participate, especially against ports and airfields. All said and done, the Kwantung Army planned for a war set in 1941 and advised immediate preparations. On July 23, 1936, Kanji Ishiwara presented the army's document titled “Request Concerning the Development of Industries in Preparation for War” to the Army Ministry. He asserted that in order to prepare for potential conflict with the Soviet Union, Japan, Manchukuo, and North China must have the industries critical for war fully developed by 1941. Ishiwara emphasized the urgent need for rapid industrial growth, particularly in Manchukuo. He followed this request on July 29 with a draft of a “Policy on Preparations for War” regarding the Soviet Union, advocating for immediate reforms to Japan's political and economic systems to facilitate economic expansion and lay the groundwork for future fundamental changes. However, he cautioned that if significant turmoil erupted in economic sectors, Japan must be ready to execute a comprehensive overhaul without delay. At the same time, the Hirota cabinet initiated a review of its policy towards China. In the spring of 1936, a secret committee focused on the Current Situation was formed, consisting of officials from the Army, Navy, and Foreign ministries. Their discussions led to the adoption of the "Measures to Implement Policy toward China" by the Four Ministers Conference on August 11, along with the "Second Outline of Policy to Address North China," which the cabinet approved as part of the "Fundamentals of National Policy" on the same day. The first of these documents outlined the following actionable steps: “1. Conclusion of an anti-Communist military pact. a) To prepare for the conclusion of such a pact, a special secret committee of military experts from both countries should be organized. b) Their discussions should cover the scope and substance of the pact and ways and means of realizing the objectives of the pact.  2. Conclusion of a Sino-Japanese military alliance. A special secret committee, composed of an equal number of delegates from each nation, should be organized to prepare for the conclusion of an offensive and defensive alliance against attack by a third country.  3. Acceleration of solutions of pending questions between China and Japan. a) Engagement of a senior political adviser: The Nationalist government should engage a senior Japanese political adviser to assist in the conduct of the domestic and foreign affairs of the Nationalist government. b) Engagement of military advisers: The Nationalist government should engage military advisers, along with military instructors. c) Opening of airline services between China and Japan: Airline services between China and Japan should be opened immediately. To realize such a service, various means should be used to induce the Nanking authorities to establish an airline corporation in North China, to begin flights between Formosa and Fukien province, and to start test flights between Shanghai and Fukuoka. d) Conclusion of a reciprocal tariff treaty: A reciprocal tariff treaty should be concluded promptly between China and Japan, on the basis of the policy approved by the ministries concerned, with regard to the abolition of the special trade in eastern Hopei province and the lowering of the prohibitively high tariffs. For this purpose Japan should, if necessary, propose the creation of a special committee composed of Japanese and Chinese representatives.  4. Promotion of economic cooperation between China and Japan. Japan should promote cooperation with the common people of China to establish realistic and inseparable economic relations between China and Japan that will promote coexistence and co-prosperity and will be unaffected by changes in the Chinese political situation. “ The document also included suggestions for Japan's economic expansion into South China. This included tapping into the natural resources of the provinces of Fujian, Guangdong, and Guangxi, building a railway between Guangzhou and Swatow, and establishing air routes between Fuchoz and Taipei, which would connect to services in Japan and Thailand. It also called for survey teams to be dispatched to explore the resources of Sichuan, Gansu, Xinjiang, and Qinghai provinces, and for support to be provided to the independence movement in Inner Mongolia. However, these initiatives presented significant challenges. The preface to the "Second Outline of Policy to Deal with North China" cautioned, "In implementing this policy, we must carefully consider the Nanking government's prestige and avoid actions that could prompt it to adopt an anti-Japanese stance in response to the desires of the Chinese people."  On September 19th, six fundamental points for a settlement in North China were dictated to China to “establish a common defense against communism, promoting economic cooperation, lowering tariffs, initiating an airline service between the two nations, employing Japanese advisers, and controlling subversive Koreans." September 22 was set as the deadline for a response from China. While agreeing to some Japanese requests, the Chinese included several counter-demands that the Japanese found completely unacceptable. These demands required Japan to “(a) refrain from using armed intervention or arbitrary actions in its dealings with China, (b) recognize China as an equal and sovereign state, (c) avoid leveraging antigovernment groups or communist elements, and (d) remove any derogatory references to China from Japanese textbooks. The Chinese also insisted that any agreement regarding North China “must precede the annulment of the Tanggu and Shanghai cease-fire agreements, the disbanding of the East Hopei regime, a prohibition on unauthorized Japanese flights over North China, a ban on smuggling activities by Japanese, the restoration of China's right to control smuggling, and the disbandment of the illegal East Hopei government along with the armies of Wang Ying and Prince De in Suiyuan”. Now that mention of a Prince De in Suiyuan brings us to a whole new incident. This podcast series should almost be called “the history of Japanese related incidents in China”. Now we've spoken at great lengths about Japan's obsession with Manchuria. She wanted it for resources, growing space and as a buffer state. Japan also had her eyes set on Inner Mongolia to be used as a buffer state between Manchukuo, the USSR and China proper. Not to mention after the invasion of North China, Inner Mongolia could be instrumental as a wedge to be used to control Northern China. Thus the Kwantung Army began fostering a Mongolian independence movement back in August of 1933. They did so through a special organ led by chief of the general staff Koiso Kuniaki. He began work with the Silingol League led by Prince Sonormurabdan or “Prince So” and another influential Mongol, Prince Demchukdongrob or “Prince De”. Prince De was the West Sunid Banner in Northern Chahar. Likewise the Kwantung Army was grooming Li Xuxin, a Mongol commoner born in southern Manchuria. He had been a bandit turned soldier absorbed into Zhang Xueliangs army. Li had distinguished himself in a campaign against a group of Mongols trying to restore the Qing dynasty to further establish an independent Mongolia. During Operation Nekka Li had served in a cavalry brigade under Zu Xingwu, reputed to be the best unit in Zhang Xueliangs Northeastern border defense army. He led the army's advance unit into western Shandong. Afterwards Li suddenly became friends with Major Tanaka Hisashi, the head of the Special Service Agency at Dungliao where he defected to the Kwantung Army. He soon was leading a force too strong to be incorporated into the Manchukuo Army, thus it was disbanded, but his Kwantung Army buddies encouraged him to move to Tolun in Rehe province. At one point during the Nekka campaign, Li's army was threatened by a strong Chinese counterattack, but they had Manchukuo air support allowing them to capture Tolun. This victory launched what became the East Chahar Special Autonomous District with Li becoming a garrison commander and chief administrator.  Back in time, upon the founding of the Chinese Republic, the affairs of Inner Mongolia fell upon the Bureau of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs. This was reorganized in 1930 into the Commission on Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs when the provinces of Chahar, Suiyuan and Ningxia were organized. Prince De had been a member of a nationalist group known as the Young Mongols, although his aim was self-determination for Inner Mongolia within China, not independence. The Nationalist government's support for Chinese settlement in Mongol territories and its disregard for Mongol perspectives quickly triggered a rise in Mongol nationalism and anti-Chinese feelings. This was exacerbated by the government's introduction of a law on October 12, 1931, requiring local Mongolian administrative units to consult with hsien officials on matters concerning their administration. The nationalist sentiment was further fueled by the presence of the neighboring Mongolian People's Republic in Outer Mongolia and the establishment of Xingan province in western Manchuria by Manchukuo authorities in March 1932. This new province included the tribes of eastern Inner Mongolia and granted them greater autonomy than other Manchukuo provinces while banning Chinese immigration into it. When Nanjing did not react to these developments, Prince De and his supporters took steps toward gaining autonomy. On July 15th, 1933, Mongol leaders from western Inner Mongolia gathered at Pailingmiao for two weeks to deliberate on a declaration for regional independence. Although many princes were initially hesitant to take this step, they reconvened on August 14 and sent a cable to Nanjing announcing their decision to create an autonomous Mongolian government. The cable was signed by Prince So and Prince De. Over the following two months, additional conferences at Pailingmiao were held to organize the new government, which would operate under Nanking's guidance but without involvement from provincial chairmen. On October 22, Prince Yun, head of the Ulanchap League and a close ally of Prince De, was elected to lead the new regime, with Prince De assuming the role of chief of its political affairs bureau. After receiving a cable from the Mongolian leaders in August, Nanjing quickly sent Minister of the Interior Huang Shao-hung and Xu Qingyang, head of the Commission on Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, to halt the movement. However, the Mongols declined to travel to Kalgan or Kueisui to meet Huang. In November, as the leader of a special commission appointed by Nanjing, Huang reached an agreement with Yun De and other Mongolian leaders concerning a proposal that abandoned the Mongols' demand for an autonomous government. This agreement was later altered by Nanjing, and its essential points were excluded from a measure approved by the Central Political Council of the Kuomintang on January 17, 1934. The dispute reignited, fueled by the Nationalist government's rising concerns over the anticipated enthronement of Pu Yi in Manchukuo. On February 28, the Central Political Council enacted a measure that outlined "eight principles of Inner Mongolian autonomy" and created the Mongolian Local Autonomous Political Council. Since these principles did not grant authority over foreign and military affairs, powers explicitly reserved for the central government in the January measure, they were seen as a concession to the Mongols and were accepted. On March 7, the central government issued regulations to establish a semi autonomous regime for Inner Mongolia, which was officially launched at Pailingmiao on April 23. Although the council was led by three moderate princes, Prince Yun, supported by Princes So and Sha, the real administrative authority was held by Prince De, who served as the secretary-general. Most of the twenty-five council members were of Mongolian royalty, through whom Prince De aimed to fulfill his objectives. Nevertheless, the Nationalist government seemed to consider the council merely a token gesture to placate De, as Nanking never provided the promised administrative funds outlined in the "eight principle declaration." Was not much of a shock Prince De sought support from the Kwantung Army, which had established contact with him as early as June 1934. Japanese pressures in North China were starting to alter the power dynamics, and after the first Western incident in Jehol in February 1935, it compelled the relocation of Sung Queyuan's army from Chahar to Hopei, providing encouragement to Prince De. In May, he met with Kwantung Army Vice Chief of Staff Itagaki Seishirö, Intelligence Section Chief Kawabe Torashirö, and staff officer Tanaka Ryükichi, where he was officially informed for the first time about the Kwantung Army's intention to assist him. On July 25, the Kwantung Army drafted its "Essentials of Policy toward Inner Mongolia," which regarded Japanese support for cooperation between De and Li Xuxin as part of their strategic preparations for a potential conflict with the Soviet Union. Shortly after this policy was adopted, a conflict arose over who had the authority to appoint the head of the Mongol Xukung banner, situated north of the Yellow River and Paot'ou. Following the death of the previous administrator, Prince Xu declared that he had taken control of the position. In response to a request from the local abbot, Prince Yun, acting in his capacity as chairman of the Mongolian Political Council, dismissed Xu. Xu then turned to Nanking through Suiyuan Provincial Chairman Fu Zuoyi, arguing that the central government held the authority to appoint heads of administrative units. In retaliation, Prince De dispatched troops to Xukung. On November 10, Fu presented a mediation proposal, which was rejected since it not only failed to acknowledge Shih's dismissal but also demanded the withdrawal of De's forces. De refused to pull back, further intensifying his hostility toward the Nanking government. In December, the Kwantung Army attempted to move Li's forces from eastern Chahar into the six Xun to the north of Kalgan, which serves as Chahar's granary. Following the Qin-Doihara agreement, Matsui Gennosuke from the Kalgan Special Service Agency secured a deal to separate these six districts from the southern region predominantly populated by Chinese; a Mongolian peace preservation corps was tasked with maintaining order in the northern area, while a Chinese corps was responsible for the south. During the discussions for an autonomous regime centered around Song Queyuan in North China in November 1935, Kwantung Army troops were concentrated around Gubeikou. To exert pressure on Song's rear, the Kwantung Army proposed replacing the Chinese peace preservation unit in the area north of Kalgan with Li Xuxin's army, which would establish this territory as its base.   The operation commenced on December 8. In a surprise attack just before dawn, Li captured Paochang. By December 12, despite facing strong Chinese resistance and the heaviest snowfall in sixty years, Li, aided by Kwantung Army planes disguised as those of the Manchukuo Airline Corporation, had taken control of Kuyuan. Further advances were halted by an order from Kwantung Army headquarters, and on December 13, it was reported that, had the operation not been stopped, Tokyo would have issued an imperial command. The operation had faced opposition from the Tientsin army, which feared it would weaken Song Queyuan's position just as they were informing Tokyo that the autonomy movement was going smoothly. Additionally, both Britain and the United States publicly expressed strong opposition to the Kwantung Army's involvement in the autonomy movement. However, the directive was ultimately prompted by the emperor's anger upon discovering that a unit of the Kwantung Army led by Colonel Matsui Takurö had advanced to Tolun to support Li's progress. Although Li's advance was halted, the operation undeniably contributed to the formation of the Hopei-Chahar Political Council.   Although the operation was halted, the Kwantung Army remained committed to its objectives. They contended that Li's army's advance into the six districts north of Kalgan was merely a peace preservation unit moving into territory within the truce line established by the Tanggu Agreement. Consequently, on December 29, they ordered Li to advance southward. Li peacefully occupied Changpei the following day and entered Shangtu on December 31. Manchukuo civil officials were appointed to oversee the six districts, and the currency of Manchukuo was introduced, although the existing tax system initially remained unchanged. The Kwantung Army allocated silver worth 6 million yuan to support administrative expenses. This outcome, known as the Eastern Chahar incident, marked a complete success for the Kwantung Army, which then redirected its focus toward Suiyuan Province. Each year, the Kwantung Army developed a secret plan for covert operations for the following year. The 1936 plan included strategies to secure air bases for routes connecting Europe and Asia, targeting Tsinghai and Sinkiang provinces, Outer Mongolia, Western Mongolia, and even remote areas of Ningxia province. In January 1936, staff officer Tanaka Ryūkichi formulated a document titled "Essentials of Policy Toward (Northwestern) Inner Mongolia." This document advocated for the establishment of a Mongolian military government to facilitate Japanese operations in northwestern Mongolia and suggested pushing Fu Tso-yi out of Suiyuan into Shansi province. Tanaka's proposals were incorporated into the final plan of the Kwantung Army, ultimately leading to the Suiyuan incident of November 1936. In February 1936, a meeting at Pailingmiao, where Prince De proposed the independence of Inner Mongolia, resulted in the departure of Prince So and several other Mongolian leaders from the coalition. They sought to establish a rival political council at Kueisui under the protection of Fu Zuoyi. By April, De and his supporters decided to form a military government at Tehua in Chahar, which was officially inaugurated in June as the Inner Mongolian government, headed by De with Li Shou-hsin as his deputy. This new government quickly signed a mutual assistance treaty with Manchukuo, and the emperor granted De the title of prince.   In July, at a conference in Tehua, Tanaka was appointed as the head of the Special Service Agency for Inner Mongolia with the mission of implementing the army's Intelligence Section plans. He traveled to Pingtiqüan alongside Chief of Staff Itagaki and Intelligence Chief Mutō Akira to propose a local anti-Communist agreement to Fu. After failing to convince Fu, he attempted to persuade Sun Tien-ying to form a puppet army but managed to recruit only a bandit from Suiyuan, Wang Ying. The February 26 mutiny in Tokyo heightened anti-Japanese sentiments in China, resulting in increased violence. By August, the construction of an airplane hangar in Paot'ou was halted due to riots by local Chinese residents. On August 13, a group of fifteen Japanese, led by Nakajima Manzo, was ambushed while delivering ammunition to a pro-Japanese leader who was shortly thereafter assassinated. Chinese soldiers from Wang Qingkuo's 70th Division carried out the attack, and tensions escalated as the arrival of ammunition and Japanese laborers in Kalgan prompted border villages to strengthen their defenses.   By late September, Tanaka's "Guidelines for the Execution of the Suiyuan Operation" received approval, with operations set to commence in early November. The plan evolved from a covert mission into a personal initiative by Tanaka, financed largely through funds from the Kwantung Army's secret services and profits from special trading in eastern Hopei. Tanaka claimed to have transported 600,000 yen to Tehua in October and later sent 200,000 yuan into Inner Mongolia, estimating total expenses at approximately 6 million yen. He acquired new weaponry from the disbanded Northeast Army and established three clandestine forces: Wang Ying led 500 men, including artillery; Qin Xiashan commanded 3,000 from Sun Tienying's army; and Chang Futang also led 3,000 specialized units. During strategic meetings, Tanaka dismissed proposals for unified command and refusing to integrate secret units into the Mongolian army. He advocated for the slogan "Overthrow Chiang Kai-shek," while Matsui managed to include "Independence for Inner Mongolia."   The Japanese had developed the entire battle strategy. The 1st Army, commanded by Li Xuxin, would serve as the left flank, while the 2nd Army, led by Demchugdongrub, would be positioned on the right. Wang Ying's forces were designated as the central force. Their initial targets would be Hongort, Xinghe, Tuchengzi, and Guisui city, followed by a division to seize Jinging, Baotou, and Hetao. On November 13, Prince Demchugdongrub's and Wang Ying's forces left Shandu in two columns to assault Xinghe and Hongort. By the 15th, 1,500 troops reached Hongort, where they engaged the 1st Cavalry Division led by Peng Yubin. The next day, Ryukichi Tanaka, Demchugdongrub's chief advisor, sent two cavalry brigades and one infantry brigade to capture the town, effectively overrunning its defenders. Meanwhile, Wang Ying dispatched a smaller group to secure Tuchengzi.   Fu Zuoyi established his headquarters in Jining that same day. After assessing the situation, he concluded that if the enemy secured Hongort, it would diminish his defenders' morale. Consequently, he launched a counterattack. Peng Yubin led a joint force of the 1st Cavalry Division and Dong Qiwu's 218th Brigade to confront around 400 of Wang Ying's men defending Hongort and Tuchengzi. By 7 AM on the 18th, Tuchengzi was reclaimed, and at 8:30 AM, the 1st Cavalry Division entered Hongort, charging through 500 of Wang Ying's soldiers. The struggle for Hongort persisted for over three days, resulting in nearly 1,000 casualties before Fu Zuoyi regained control.   As the tide shifted against the invaders, Fu Zuoyi initiated an offensive toward the Bailing Temple, the rear base of the enemy, well-stocked and defended by 3,000 men under Prince Demchugdongrub. Fu Zuoyi ordered the 2nd Cavalry Division, along with the 211th and 315th Brigades, the 21st Artillery Regiment, and a convoy of 20 trucks and 24 armored vehicles to assault the Bailing Temple as quickly as possible. Taking advantage of the Mongolian chaos, Fu Zuoyi's 35th Brigade executed a flanking maneuver west of the Bailing Temple amid a severe snowstorm.   At 1 AM on the 24th, the battle for the Bailing Temple commenced as the Chinese engaged the Mongolians for the fortified positions around the temple. From 2 to 4 AM, the Chinese advanced closer to the temple walls, facing artillery and machine-gun fire. They launched desperate frontal assaults against the city gates, suffering heavy losses. A fierce stalemate ensued, with Japanese aerial bombardments causing significant casualties to the Chinese forces. Fu Zuoyi subsequently ordered all armored vehicles to converge at the main city gate. Despite intense fire, the armored cars managed to breach the gate, allowing Chinese infantry to flood into the temple area. The resulting carnage within the temple walls led to 900 Mongol deaths, with 300 captured as the rest fled. The Chinese suffered 300 casualties but secured the strategically vital rear base, along with a substantial stockpile of provisions, including 500 barrels of petrol, 600 rifles, 10 machine guns, vehicles, and field guns. Following the devastating defeat at Bailing Temple, the invaders regrouped at Xilamuleng Temple. On the 28th, the Japanese sent 100 vehicles to transport 3,000 troops to prepare for a significant counteroffensive to recapture Bailing Temple. On the 29th, Wang Ying personally led 2,000 cavalry north of Shangdu to Taolin in an attempt to contain the enemy. However, after he left the bulk of his forces at Xilamuleng Temple, officers from the Grand Han Righteous Army secretly began negotiating to defect to the Chinese side, undermining the forces needed for the counterattack against Bailing Temple.   The counteroffensive commenced on December 2nd, with 10 armored vehicles and 1,000 Mongol troops leading the charge at 6 AM. They were pushed back by the heavily fortified 211th Brigade, which was well-supplied with machine guns and artillery. The following day, at 3 AM, the Mongols attempted a surprise attack but faced an ambush as they crept toward the temple. They incurred hundreds of casualties, with 230 men either captured or having defected. After this, the counterattack stalled, as the Mongol forces couldn't approach within 3 miles of the temple. Subsequently, the Chinese 2nd Cavalry Division launched a pincer maneuver, causing significant casualties among the invaders. By 9 AM, the enemy had suffered 500 casualties and was in retreat. At 7 PM, Fu Zuoyi ordered another counteroffensive. By the next morning, hundreds more had been lost, and several hundred soldiers were captured. With such heavy losses, the defense of Xilamuleng Temple weakened significantly, prompting more officers to defect to the Chinese. Late on the 4th, Fu Zuoyi assembled a force comprising two cavalry regiments, one infantry regiment, one artillery battalion, four armored vehicles, and a squadron of cars to launch a nighttime assault on Xilamuleng Temple.   Meanwhile, the 2nd Cavalry Division clashed with Wang Ying's cavalry 30 miles northeast of Wulanhua. Wang Ying's 2,000 cavalry had been raiding nearby villages to create diversions, drawing enemy forces away from the Bailing-Xilamuleng theater. By the 9th, Wang Ying's cavalry were encircled in Xiaobei, where they were nearly annihilated, with Wang escaping with around a hundred guards toward Changpei. On the 7th, some Grand Han Righteous Army officers set in motion plans to defect to the Chinese side. Early on the 9th, these officers led their men to invade the residence of Japanese advisors, killing all 27 Japanese officers under Colonel Obama. Simultaneously, Fu Zuoyi's forces executed a flanking maneuver against the Xilamuleng Temple amidst the chaos. With mass defections, the Chinese forces surged into the temple area, resulting in the invader army disintegrating in confusion and surrender. After seizing the temple, the invaders were routed, their lines of communication severed, and only isolated pockets continued to resist. Taking advantage of the confusion, Fu Zuoyi launched simultaneous attacks, attempting to capture Shangdu. However, Yan Xishan sent him a telegram, ordering him to halt, stating that Shangdu fell under the jurisdiction of Shanxi and not Suiyuan.   In response to the loss, Tanaka planned a counteroffensive with Qin's troops, but Chiang kai-shek commanded a strong defense of Pailingmiao, successfully outmaneuvering Tanaka's strategies. The resurgence of Chinese forces led to the disintegration of Qin's troops, who revolted and eventually joined the Nationalist army. The Kwantung Army aimed to redeploy its forces for recovery but faced opposition from Tokyo, which criticized the situation. After Chiang kai-shek was kidnapped by Zhang Xueliang on December 12, Tanaka and Prince De seized the opportunity to reassess their strategy. Ultimately, the Kwantung Army decided to abandon efforts to reclaim Pailingmiao, marking the official end of hostilities on December 21. The Suiyuan incident ultimately strengthened Chinese resolve against Japan and increased international distrust.   The defeat of Japan's proxy forces inspired many Chinese to advocate for a more vigorous resistance against the Japanese. The triumph in Suiyuan was celebrated throughout China and surprised the international media, marking the first occasion where the Chinese army successfully halted a Japanese unit. Delegations traveled from as distant as southern Chinese provinces to encourage the defenders to continue their fight. Captured Japanese weapons and equipment served as proof of Japan's involvement in the conflict, despite Japan's Foreign Minister Hachirō Arita claiming that "Japan was not involved in this conflict in Suiyuan at all." After his defeat, Prince Demchugdongrub and his Inner Mongolian troops retreated to northern Chahar, where he had to reconstruct his army due to significant losses. The Japanese implemented new regulations for the Mongolian Army to enhance its effectiveness, and efforts to recruit new soldiers commenced.   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. More incidents and more battles to seize territory raged in North China. However things did not go according to plan for the Japanese and their puppets. The tides had turned, and now a more angry and invigorating China would begin lashing out against the encroachment. It was only a matter of time before a full blown war was declared. 

Nick Cohen talks to Russia expert Ian GarnerNick Cohen and Dr Ian Garner discussed the impact of Vladimir Putin on global affairs and the ongoing war in Ukraine, with Ian highlighting the strict government control, lack of free speech, and severe punishments for dissent in Russia. They also discussed the economic impact of the war, the rise of fascism in Russia, and the Russian government's propaganda tactics. The conversation ended with a discussion on the political landscape in Russia, the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the cultural and historical factors that contribute to Russia's inclination towards war.Putin's Impact on Global AffairsNick Cohen introduces the podcast "The Lowdown" and welcomes guest Ian Garner, an academic authority on Russia. They discuss the impact of Vladimir Putin on global affairs and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Ian explains that despite Russia suffering an estimated 900,000 casualties in the war, the country hasn't fallen apart due to strict government control, lack of free speech, and severe punishments for dissent.Political Prisoners in Putin's RussiaIan discussed the increasing number of political prisoners in Putin's Russia, surpassing the Soviet Union's post-Stalin era. He highlighted the return of old techniques like psychiatric institutions and show trials, and the lack of a fair legal system in Russia. Ian also touched on the militarization of Russian culture, both historically and under the Putin regime, and the government's strategy of bribing people to join the military.Rise of Fascism in RussiaIan and Nick discussed the rise of fascism in Russia, tracing its roots to the late Soviet era when dissident groups emerged, including neo-Nazi and nationalist movements. They noted the disappointment of many Russians with the experience of democracy in the 1990s, which led to the rise of a nationalist, irredentist, and revanchist bloc.Russian Propaganda Tactics and ControlIan discussed the Russian government's propaganda tactics, including creating multiple narratives to shape public opinion and reality. He noted that these tactics are effective, despite being crude, and that they allow the government to maintain control and manipulate public perception. Ian also compared the current situation to the aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan war, where similar tactics were used to control public opinion.Read all about it!Dr Ian Garner @irgarner is professor of Russia, war, propaganda @ Pilecki Institute & author of Z Generation: Russia's Fascist Youth. His next book -co-authored - Russia and Modern Fascism is out August 5th.Nick Cohen's @NickCohen4 latest Substack column Writing from London on politics and culture from the UK and beyond. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a multipolar world where America wields less relative power, the United States can no longer get away with poor statecraft. To understand how the US can approach future national security challenges, I spoke with Dennis Ross, a senior US diplomat and the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His new book, Statecraft 2.0: What America Needs to Lead in a Multipolar World (Oxford University Press, 2025) offers a revised toolkit for US foreign policy and global leadership. The United States may still be the world's strongest country, but it now faces real challenges at both a global and regional level. The unipolar world which was dominated by America after the Cold War is gone. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is both a military and economic competitor and it is actively challenging the norms and institutions that the US used to shape an international order during and after the Cold War. Directly and indirectly, it has partners trying to undo the American-dominated order, with Russia seeking to extinguish Ukraine, and Iran trying to undermine American presence, influence, and any set of rules for the Middle East that it does not dominate. The failures of American policy in Afghanistan and Iraq have weakened the domestic consensus for a US leadership role internationally. Traditions in US foreign policy, especially the American sense of exceptionalism, have at different points justified both withdrawal and international activism. Iraq and Afghanistan fed the instinct to withdraw and to end the “forever wars.” But the folly of these US interventions did not necessarily mean that all use of force to back diplomacy or specific political ends was wrong; rather it meant in these cases, the Bush Administration failed in the most basic task of good statecraft: namely, marrying objectives and means. Nothing more clearly defines effective statecraft than identifying well-considered goals and then knowing how to use all the tools of statecraft—diplomatic, economic, military, intelligence, information, cyber, scientific, education—to achieve them. But all too often American presidents have adopted goals that were poorly defined and not thought through. In Statecraft 2.0, Dennis Ross explains why failing to marry objectives and means has happened so often in American foreign policy. He uses historical examples to illustrate the factors that account for this, including political pressures, weak understanding of the countries where the US has intervened, changing objectives before achieving those that have been established, relying too much on ourselves and too little on allies and partners. To be fair, there have not only been failures, there have been successes as well. Ross uses case studies to look more closely at the circumstances in which Administrations have succeeded and failed in marrying objectives and means. He distills the lessons from good cases of statecraft—German unification in NATO, the first Gulf War, the surge in Iraq 2007-8—and bad cases of statecraft—going to war in Iraq 2003, and the Obama policy toward Syria. Based on those lessons, he develops a framework for applying today a statecraft approach to our policy toward China, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The book concludes with how a smart statecraft approach would shape policy toward the new national security challenges of climate, pandemics, and cyber. Dr. Andrew O. Pace is a historian of the US in the world who specializes in the moral fog of war. 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 a multipolar world where America wields less relative power, the United States can no longer get away with poor statecraft. To understand how the US can approach future national security challenges, I spoke with Dennis Ross, a senior US diplomat and the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His new book, Statecraft 2.0: What America Needs to Lead in a Multipolar World (Oxford University Press, 2025) offers a revised toolkit for US foreign policy and global leadership. The United States may still be the world's strongest country, but it now faces real challenges at both a global and regional level. The unipolar world which was dominated by America after the Cold War is gone. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is both a military and economic competitor and it is actively challenging the norms and institutions that the US used to shape an international order during and after the Cold War. Directly and indirectly, it has partners trying to undo the American-dominated order, with Russia seeking to extinguish Ukraine, and Iran trying to undermine American presence, influence, and any set of rules for the Middle East that it does not dominate. The failures of American policy in Afghanistan and Iraq have weakened the domestic consensus for a US leadership role internationally. Traditions in US foreign policy, especially the American sense of exceptionalism, have at different points justified both withdrawal and international activism. Iraq and Afghanistan fed the instinct to withdraw and to end the “forever wars.” But the folly of these US interventions did not necessarily mean that all use of force to back diplomacy or specific political ends was wrong; rather it meant in these cases, the Bush Administration failed in the most basic task of good statecraft: namely, marrying objectives and means. Nothing more clearly defines effective statecraft than identifying well-considered goals and then knowing how to use all the tools of statecraft—diplomatic, economic, military, intelligence, information, cyber, scientific, education—to achieve them. But all too often American presidents have adopted goals that were poorly defined and not thought through. In Statecraft 2.0, Dennis Ross explains why failing to marry objectives and means has happened so often in American foreign policy. He uses historical examples to illustrate the factors that account for this, including political pressures, weak understanding of the countries where the US has intervened, changing objectives before achieving those that have been established, relying too much on ourselves and too little on allies and partners. To be fair, there have not only been failures, there have been successes as well. Ross uses case studies to look more closely at the circumstances in which Administrations have succeeded and failed in marrying objectives and means. He distills the lessons from good cases of statecraft—German unification in NATO, the first Gulf War, the surge in Iraq 2007-8—and bad cases of statecraft—going to war in Iraq 2003, and the Obama policy toward Syria. Based on those lessons, he develops a framework for applying today a statecraft approach to our policy toward China, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The book concludes with how a smart statecraft approach would shape policy toward the new national security challenges of climate, pandemics, and cyber. Dr. Andrew O. Pace is a historian of the US in the world who specializes in the moral fog of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Last time we looked at the continuing disintegration of the British Empire. In this episode we look at two other key aspects of Macmillan's foreign policy, Britain's relations with the US and with potential European partners.Towards the US, what the experience confirmed is Britain's declining influence and its increasing dependence on, and even subordination to, American policies. Towards Europe, Britain became directly hostile towards the European Economic Community (EEC), trying to build a rival to it in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). As it became increasingly clear that this was never going to really fly, and as the British economy weakened, Macmillan found himself having to swallow his pride, reverse his position and apply for membership of the EEC after all. To the government's shock, the perception of Britain as increasingly dominated by the United States led to the French president, Charles de Gaulle – never an Anglophile and now increasingly mistrustful – applying the French veto to British accession. To top all that, Macmillan's increasingly battered and unpopular government was further hit by a series of three scandals: John Vassal was found to be an Admiralty employee spying for the Soviet Union; Kim Philby who Macmillan had backed against suspicions that he was a Soviet spy confirmed that he actually was by defecting to Moscow; and the scandal around Christine Keeler and the Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, did even further damage to the government's credibility.By October, Macmillan could stand it no longer and, genuinely not well, he decided to resign as Prime Minister on health grounds.This episode runs a little longer than most, because it also mentions the new German translation of the podcast. It's available at:https://open.spotify.com/show/08M357CvtiWJsnEGyxitco?si=64613c2919df4a27Illustration: Christine Keeler 1963, photograph by Lewis Morley. Keeler claimed that she wasn't actually naked. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London/Lewis MorleyMusic: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License

In a multipolar world where America wields less relative power, the United States can no longer get away with poor statecraft. To understand how the US can approach future national security challenges, I spoke with Dennis Ross, a senior US diplomat and the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His new book, Statecraft 2.0: What America Needs to Lead in a Multipolar World (Oxford University Press, 2025) offers a revised toolkit for US foreign policy and global leadership. The United States may still be the world's strongest country, but it now faces real challenges at both a global and regional level. The unipolar world which was dominated by America after the Cold War is gone. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is both a military and economic competitor and it is actively challenging the norms and institutions that the US used to shape an international order during and after the Cold War. Directly and indirectly, it has partners trying to undo the American-dominated order, with Russia seeking to extinguish Ukraine, and Iran trying to undermine American presence, influence, and any set of rules for the Middle East that it does not dominate. The failures of American policy in Afghanistan and Iraq have weakened the domestic consensus for a US leadership role internationally. Traditions in US foreign policy, especially the American sense of exceptionalism, have at different points justified both withdrawal and international activism. Iraq and Afghanistan fed the instinct to withdraw and to end the “forever wars.” But the folly of these US interventions did not necessarily mean that all use of force to back diplomacy or specific political ends was wrong; rather it meant in these cases, the Bush Administration failed in the most basic task of good statecraft: namely, marrying objectives and means. Nothing more clearly defines effective statecraft than identifying well-considered goals and then knowing how to use all the tools of statecraft—diplomatic, economic, military, intelligence, information, cyber, scientific, education—to achieve them. But all too often American presidents have adopted goals that were poorly defined and not thought through. In Statecraft 2.0, Dennis Ross explains why failing to marry objectives and means has happened so often in American foreign policy. He uses historical examples to illustrate the factors that account for this, including political pressures, weak understanding of the countries where the US has intervened, changing objectives before achieving those that have been established, relying too much on ourselves and too little on allies and partners. To be fair, there have not only been failures, there have been successes as well. Ross uses case studies to look more closely at the circumstances in which Administrations have succeeded and failed in marrying objectives and means. He distills the lessons from good cases of statecraft—German unification in NATO, the first Gulf War, the surge in Iraq 2007-8—and bad cases of statecraft—going to war in Iraq 2003, and the Obama policy toward Syria. Based on those lessons, he develops a framework for applying today a statecraft approach to our policy toward China, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The book concludes with how a smart statecraft approach would shape policy toward the new national security challenges of climate, pandemics, and cyber. Dr. Andrew O. Pace is a historian of the US in the world who specializes in the moral fog of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

In this episode, we're talking to a seller who sold over $100 million on Amazon about why tariffs haven't affected him at all, what's more important to him than initial reviews, and more! ► Instagram: instagram.com/serioussellerspodcast ► Free Amazon Seller Chrome Extension: https://h10.me/extension ► Sign Up For Helium 10: https://h10.me/signup  (Use SSP10 To Save 10% For Life) ► Learn How To Sell on Amazon: https://h10.me/ft ► Watch The Podcasts On YouTube: youtube.com/@Helium10/videos Meet Neeme Rõõs, a trailblazing Amazon seller hailing from Estonia, who shares his fascinating journey from a childhood in the Soviet Union to becoming a heavyweight in the Amazon-selling arena. Neeme opens up about his transition from managing thousands of affiliate websites to launching a successful private label venture on Amazon. With over $100 million in sales under his belt, Neeme provides invaluable insights into how he achieved early victories with essential oils and navigated the dynamic shifts in the e-commerce landscape to keep his business thriving. The episode dives into the nitty-gritty of operating a successful Amazon business amid rising fees and advertising costs. Neeme reveals his strategies to focus on product quality and customer satisfaction, even as the e-commerce arena becomes more competitive. We discuss the benefits of manufacturing in the U.S. for brands in the beauty and health sectors, a choice that has helped Neeme's business sidestep adverse tariffs and supply chain hiccups. Learn about the meticulous crafting of unique products and algorithm-friendly listings that capture customer attention and stand out in the marketplace.   In an enlightening conversation on market strategies, Neeme emphasizes the role of customer feedback and keyword optimization in product launches. We explore how securing initial reviews and targeting specific keywords attract informed buyers and reduce negative feedback. This episode also highlights tools like Helium 10 Audience, powered by PickFu, and Market Tracker which aid in optimizing product listings and understanding market share. As a final treat, we offer a glimpse into an upcoming Amazon seller conference in Estonia, Ambizion, showcasing the immense value of connecting with peers and exploring Estonia's vibrant history and culinary delights. Use code HELIUM10 to get 100€ off your tickets! In episode 666 of the Serious Sellers Podcast, Bradley and Neeme discuss: 00:00 - E-Commerce Success and Expansion Strategies 01:00 - Impact of Tariffs on Amazon Sales 07:19 - Amazon Sales Growth in EU and Amazon US Expansion 13:33 - Amazon Business Strategy Success Factors 15:35 - Long-Term Product Strategy Approach 19:09 - Impact of Tariffs on Competitors 21:41 - Product Feedback and Keyword Optimization 26:09 - Slow and Steady Growth Strategy 28:46 - Catch Bradley at the Ambizion Event 32:41 - Market Share Strategy and Estonia Travel 34:48 - Helium 10 Market Tracker

Max Pearson presents a collection of the week's Witness History interviews from the BBC World Service. Our guest is Dr Elizabeth Abbott, writer, historian and author of the book, "Sugar: A Bittersweet History".First, we confront the dark history of sugar. We hear how a researcher in the 1990s uncovered the unethical aspects of Sweden's Vipeholm experiments in the 1940 which led to new recommendations for children to eat sweets just once a week.And, how Mexico, a country which had one of the highest rates of fizzy drink consumption in the world, approved a tax on sugary soft drinks in 2013. Then an event which shaped the second half of the last century - On 14 May 1955, the leader of the Soviet Union and Heads of State from seven European countries met to sign the Warsaw Pact.Plus, the story of how two rival electricity pioneers, Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison brought electricity to the world. Finally, we hear from Finnish singer Marion Rung on winning the 1980 Intervision Song Contest, the USSR's answer to Eurovision. Contributors: Dr Elin Bommenel - academic Dr Simon Barquera - director of health and nutrition research at The Institute for Public Health of Mexico Dr Elizabeth Abbott - writer and historian Otto Grotewohl - German politician Mark Seifer - biographer of Nikola Tesla William Terbo - relative of Nikola Tesla Marion Rung - Finnish winner of Intervision song contest 1980(Photo: sugar cubes and fizzy drinks, Credit: Anthony Devlin/Press Association)

This episode we chat our live podcast at The Quiet Corner Community Comic and Sci-Fi Convention, Declassified UFO attack in the Soviet Union that turned 23 soldiers into stone, and uncover some of the scariest things The Warren's have within the walls of their Occult Museum. 

Fifty-three years ago, on March 31, 1972, the Soviet Union launched a spacecraft that was supposed to go to Venus. But it never made it to Venus. Some malfunction in the rocket prevented it from leaving the earth's orbit. The Soviets named this spacecraft Cosmos 482—which became code in Soviet lexicon for epic failure. For 53 years, the spacecraft that could never make it to Venus circled the earth. Year after year never getting to where it was meant to go. Year after year stuck in a perpetual orbit. But it turns out that every year it lost a little bit of height in its orbital wanderings so that, last Saturday, on Shabbos, Cosmos 482 could finally find rest. Last Saturday, Cosmos 482 fell back to the earth, into the sea, without causing harm to people or property.I am not a space person. I don't follow NASA. But the minute I heard this crazy story, I thought to myself: There is a sermon in that! Because what happened to Cosmos 482 happens to every one of us in our own way.

Join @thebuzzknight with singer-songwriter musician Alya. Her path into music was sparked by a deep well of resilience, and her creative spirit has touched listeners around the world. Alya is a Grammy winning artist and philanthropist known for her soulful melodies and dedication to making a positive impact on the world. Born and raised in the Soviet Union, her passion for music began at the age of 7. Her musical style blends elements of inspiration, pop and dance, resulting in a sound both distinctive and mesmerizing. She has collaborated with legends like Eric Clapton and producer-engineer Bill Schnee and she discusses that work along with her newest work with Erica Campbell( 1/2 of the Grammy-winning duo Mary Mary). A Note to our Community Your support means everything to us! As we continue to grow, we’d love to hear what guests you might find interesting and what conversations you’d like us to explore nest. Have a friend who might enjoy our conversations? Please share our podcast with them! Your word of mouth recommendations help us reach new listeners that could benefit from our content. Thank you for being part of our community. We’re excited for what’s ahead! Warmly Buzz Knight Founder Buzz Knight Media Productions Support the show: https://takinawalk.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is an old Soviet joke, ‘Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is its exact opposite.' On the surface, neoliberalism, with its emphasis on free markets, competition and privatisation, is as far removed as possible from the Soviet Union. But behind the policies, could they be guided by the same false utopianism? Abby Innes, professor of Political Economy at the LSE, argues that the utopianism that guided the Soviet Union to disaster is eerily similar to the decline of our modern politics, and for Western states to succeed they need to throw off the shackles of utopianism and rediscover the scientific method.Dr Abby Innes weaves political analysis with the scientific method to expose the ironic similarities between our current politics and the Soviet Union. She is an Associate Professor of Political Economy at the European Institute at the LSE. Her work focuses on party-state development, the transition from the Soviet system in Eastern Europe and the modern neoliberal state.Do you think we are living in a Soviet dystopia? Email us at podcast@iai.tv with your thoughts on the episode!To witness such topics discussed live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Join @thebuzzknight with singer-songwriter musician Alya. Her path into music was sparked by a deep well of resilience, and her creative spirit has touched listeners around the world. Alya is a Grammy winning artist and philanthropist known for her soulful melodies and dedication to making a positive impact on the world. Born and raised in the Soviet Union, her passion for music began at the age of 7. Her musical style blends elements of inspiration, pop and dance, resulting in a sound both distinctive and mesmerizing. She has collaborated with legends like Eric Clapton and producer-engineer Bill Schnee and she discusses that work along with her newest work with Erica Campbell( 1/2 of the Grammy-winning duo Mary Mary). A Note to our Community Your support means everything to us! As we continue to grow, we’d love to hear what guests you might find interesting and what conversations you’d like us to explore nest. Have a friend who might enjoy our conversations? Please share our podcast with them! Your word of mouth recommendations help us reach new listeners that could benefit from our content. Thank you for being part of our community. We’re excited for what’s ahead! Warmly Buzz Knight Founder Buzz Knight Media Productions See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Emil Draitser — Soviet satirist turned American memoirist — joins Suzi to talk about his new book, Laughing All the Way to Freedom: The Americanization of a Russian Émigré. It's a sharp, funny, and moving account of his journey from censorship and conformity in the USSR to the chaotic freedoms of the 1970s United States. We explore how satire served as both survival and resistance in the Soviet Union, and how his identity was reshaped — culturally, politically, and personally — through the messy process of becoming American. Emil reflects on the welcome once extended to Cold War refugees like himself, and the stark contrast with today's hostile climate for immigrants. We also touch on the uneasy “friendship” between Putin and Trump, imperialists determined to redefine the character of politics. Jacobin Radio with Suzi Weissman features conversations with leading thinkers and activists, with a focus on labor, the economy, and protest movements.

Every other week, we'll be re-releasing an episode we think deserves more attention. Today, we'll hear about The Candy Bomber. After World War Two, Germany was split up and occupied by the United States, France, Britain and the Soviet Union. In June of 1948, the U.S., France, and Britain announced they were creating a unified West German currency. Joseph Stalin opposed this unification, and cut off land routes from Berlin to West Germany.  In order to bypass the land routes, bombers transported supplies (primarily food) and delivered them to West Berlin in what was called Operation Vittles. Colonel Gail S. Halvorsen was one of several pilots recruited to fly these missions. One day, after sneaking out and flying to Berlin for some R&R, COL Halvorsen met some local children who were survivors of the war. Talking with them changed his life, and he decided he wanted to do something to help them. He returned to base, gathered as much candy and gum as he could, fashioned parachutes with handkerchiefs, and put all the goodies inside. The next day, he flew over West Berlin and dropped the parachutes full of candy out of his bomb bay.  The children were delighted. COL Halvorsen did this several more times, and gained international acclaim for his actions. To learn more about COL Halvorsen, check out his book, The Berlin Candy Bomber. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With Eliot traveling abroad, Eric hosts Financial Times Washington commentator Edward Luce, author of Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Great Power Prophet (New York, Avid Reader Press, 2025). They discuss Zbig's historical significance, why there have been more biographies of Henry Kissinger than Brzezinski and whether or not he was, in the long pull of history, more consequential than Kissinger. They also consider whether Brzezinski was a better National Security Adviser than Carter was a President. They talk about the very complicated Zbig-Henry relationship and the different styles they brought not only to their interpersonal exchanges but also their concern for reputation management in Washington. They touch on Zbig's contributions to the reorientation of nuclear strategy, nuclear command and control, undermining the Soviet Union with covert action and an emphasis on nationalities, the catastrophic collapse of the Shah's regime in Iran and the subsequent hostage crisis which sank the Carter Presidency, as well as arguably Zbig's finest moment after the 1980 election when the Carter Administration fended off a possible Soviet invasion of Poland. Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Great Power Prophet: https://a.co/d/1BeHvGu Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

Every so often we're going to bring you something we've been calling off-cuts and footnotes. These are extended scenes and deep dives that didn't make the final cut of the main episodes. This is also a place where we can talk about your questions and comments. So feel free to send your thoughts to htbdpodcast@gmail.com in a voice note or a quick message. This episode is a footnote. We're going to take a deeper dive into housing in the context of the Soviet Union. In the USSR and generally in the post-World War II city planning regimes, housing and new construction technologies played a major role in urban development booms. We're still feeling the impact of it to this day. The Soviet Union is a major contributor to this moment because it planned standardized residential developments to be deployed around its territories and spheres of influence. These designs were replicated so extensively that you can find them all over the world, from Poland to Iran from Estonia to Vietnam and of course in Odes[s]a. In this footnote, we'll hear from Kate Malaia, the author of Taking the Soviet Union Apart Room by Room, about the development of these residential blocks. We'll also hear from Odesiti who lived in the Soviet Union's first housing experiment, the communalki or communal apartments and later transitioned to different types of residential housing in Soviet Odes[s]a.

In this powerful episode of Manlihood: a podcast for men, Josh Hatcher sits down with Christian Ray Flores—a former refugee turned Russian pop star, now an entrepreneur, evangelist, coach, and unapologetic believer in the American Dream.Christian shares his incredible life story—growing up across continents, surviving war and dictatorship, rising to fame in post-Soviet Russia, and ultimately building a life of faith, freedom, and purpose in the United States.This episode is a deep dive into the essence of manhood, resilience, opportunity, and the power of apprenticeship. Christian talks about overcoming trauma, building something meaningful from nothing, and why America still matters.You'll also hear about:

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

Tonight at 7 PM Eastern, Robert Kalil welcomes Dr. Hugh Ross, renowned astrophysicist and founder of Reasons to Believe (RTB), to the Typical Skeptic Podcast. Dr. Ross holds a PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto and did postdoctoral research at Caltech on quasars and galaxies.As one of the few scientists who publicly bridges cosmic science and Christian faith, Dr. Ross has spent decades presenting a testable creation model and tackling questions at the intersection of science, Scripture, and the supernatural. In this episode, we go deep into his investigations of UFO phenomena, demonic encounters, and the spiritual implications of extraterrestrial deception.

It was a time of high tension, fierce back-and-forth, and a relentless pursuit to dominate the world--and that was just between Coke and Pepsi. When you throw the Cold War into the mix, not only do you get a tumultuous time period, but the Cola Wars ramped up to another level. For Pepsi, a way to compete against Coke was to gain a foothold in the Soviet Union. And that's exactly what they did--but little did anyone know just how big they would become in the USSR.  This is a look back at Pepsi's remarkable growth in the Soviet Union in the 80s, the continuous battle against Coca-Cola, and then one of the most remarkable business deals in history. Had Pepsi, for a short while, actually become a military power... War Games movie Review: Patreon.com/80s  

When Sheila Fitzpatrick first went to Moscow in the 1960s as a young academic, the prevailing understanding of the Soviet Union in the West was governed by the ‘totalitarian hypothesis', of a system ruled entirely from the top down. Her examination of the ministry papers of Anatoly Lunacharsky, the first Commissar of Enlightenment after the Revolution, challenged this view, beginning a long career in which she has frequently questioned the conventional understanding of Soviet history and changed the field with works such as Everyday Stalinism. In this episode, Sheila talks to Daniel about her work in the Soviet archives, about some of the obstacles researchers face, and her latest books, Lost Souls and The Death of Stalin.Read more by Sheila in the LRB: https://lrb.me/fitzpatrickpodSponsored links:To find out about financial support for professional writers visit the Royal Literary Fund here: https://www.rlf.org.uk/LRB AudioDiscover audiobooks, Close Readings and more from the LRB: https://lrb.me/audiolrbpod Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this week's Stansberry Investor Hour, Dan and Corey welcome Vitaliy Katsenelson back to the show. Vitaliy is the CEO and chief investment officer of Investment Management Associates. He's also an author, award-winning writer, and founder of "The Intellectual Investor" newsletter and podcast.  Vitaliy kicks off the show by discussing the difficulty in writing books and how he has evolved as an investor over the years. He explains that through continuous trial and error, he has learned not to dumpster-dive for bad stocks just because they're cheap. He emphasizes the value of good management, knowing your own strengths, and allowing yourself to say no to investments that aren't in your circle of competence. Vitaliy also gives his thoughts on Warren Buffett's retirement and Berkshire Hathaway's stock today. (1:40) Next, Vitaliy shares his experience running portfolios and how his strategy differs from Buffett's. This leads to a conversation about what could happen to Berkshire after Buffett passes and what made Vitaliy decide "I don't want to be like Buffett." He gives his nuanced take on learning from legendary businessmen and other historical figures without agreeing with them on everything. Similarly, the U.S. trading with countries it disagrees with (like Russia) is important. Vitaliy discusses his own experience growing up in the Soviet Union and being "brainwashed" to hate Americans. And he talks more about finding a good work-life balance, no matter your career. (21:19) Then, Vitaliy dives into the psychology behind decision-making and willpower. He quotes one of his favorite sayings as a reminder to investors: "Knowing and not doing is not knowing." After that, Vitaliy shares why he believes Uber Technologies still has a lot of upside today. He notes that the stock isn't cheap, but it is undervalued. And he breaks down his reasoning for wanting to hold the stock long term, including its potential to incorporate Waymo or other self-driving cars on its app. (39:26)

Send us a textToday, we cover those scientists who served during the time of the Soviet Union.Support the show

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Jun 18, 2021 Kristen R. Ghodsee returns to the show, this time to discuss the life, work, and legacy of the famous Marxist Feminist Alexandra Kollontai. We discuss her life, her radicalization, her relationship with other famous revolutionaries, her role in the October Revolution, her enduring contributions to feminism, Marxism, and proletarian history, and much, much more.  Check out Kristen's work here: https://kristenghodsee.com/ Check out AK-47, Kristen's podcast dedicated to Kollontai here: https://kristenghodsee.com/podcast Here are all the previous episodes of RLR that Kristen has been a guest on: Red Hangover: https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/red-hangover-legacies-of-20th-century-communism-w-dr-kristen-r-ghodsee International Women's Day: https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/womens-day Women Behind the Iron Curtain: https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/women-under-socialism ---------------------------------------------------- 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 HERE  

May 9, 1945. The Soviet Union celebrates Victory Day after Germany's unconditional surrender brings an end to World War II in Europe. This episode originally aired in 2022.Support the show! Join Into History for ad-free listening and more.History Daily is a co-production of Airship and Noiser.Go to HistoryDaily.com for more history, daily.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.