Podcasts about Joseph Stalin

Het is 45 jaar later, maar de gebeurtenissen in de wereldpolitiek van 1980 zijn verbluffend en leerzaam voor het heden. Vlak voor de cruciale NAVO-top en de daaropvolgende EU-top gaan we op bezoek in het Kremlin van toen en naar de ruige bergpassen van Afghanistan en het Vaticaan – met ook toen een nieuwe paus uit een bijzonder land. Jaap Jansen en PG Kroeger over de paranoïde, dementerende leider in het Kremlin, Leonid Brezjnev. Het dagboek wat hij bijhield werd steeds leger. Zijn bewind werd verlamd door de woeste baarden van de Moedjahedien, een wegzakkende economie die olie en gas rijkdom verspilde en door angst voor een kleine, gisse kettingroker in Beijing. ***Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt met donaties van luisteraars die we hiervoor hartelijk danken. Word ook vriend van de show!Heb je belangstelling om in onze podcast te adverteren of ons te sponsoren? Zend een mailtje naar adverteren@dagennacht.nl en wij zoeken contact.Op sommige podcast-apps kun je niet alles lezen. De complete tekst plus linkjes en een overzicht van al onze eerdere afleveringen vind je hier***De jeugd in Moskou verveelde zich en keek jaloers naar de welvaart en vrijheden van leeftijdsgenoten elders. In het Westen maakte 'Eurosclerose' en verdeeldheid plaats voor 'één stem' en dynamiek. En een nieuwe paus riep: "Weest niet bevreesd!" In het bijzonder tegen zijn landgenoten en alle onderdrukten in het Oosten. De inval in Afghanistan in 1979 bleek direct al een rampzalige onderneming. Het kwam tot oneindig bloedvergieten, zware materiële verliezen en enorme schade aan de reputatie van de supermacht die hier in het drijfzand van de oorlog ten onder ging. Hoe kwam het tot die militaire ramp? Waarom maakte het Kremlin zo'n grote fout en waarom durfde niemand daar ermee te kappen? Brezjnev verpestte zo niet alleen zijn grote trots, de Olympische Zomerspelen in Moskou, maar ook de relatie met Washington. Afghanistan ruïneerde de herverkiezing van de Amerikaanse president Jimmy Carter, Brezjnevs droom van wereldheerschappij samen met Amerika en de faam van technologische superioriteit van de Sovjeteconomie. Vilein sloot China's Deng Xiaoping een alliantie met Amerika, Arabische landen en islamitische strijders - gefinancierd door rijke families als Bin Laden - om Moskou verder in het verderf te storten. Zelfs vazal Saddam Hoessein in Bagdad trok zich van Brezjnev niets meer aan en begon zijn eigen oorlog. Het bewind in Moskou was in verval, wereldwijd. Al in 1968 had KGB-chef Joeri Andropov gewaarschuwd dat de economie op instorten stond. Maar Brezjnev gokte liever op het gasgeld en stopte diens memorandum in de diepste la van zijn bureau. Toen Andropov hem 1982 opvolgde was het te laat, ook de chef van de geheime dienst was zwaar aan het aftakelen. Hij promootte nog jonge protegés als Gorbatsjov, Jeltsin en Poetin, maar zijn beleid stokte in repressie. Hij stierf al snel en zijn opvolger, de bureauchef van Brezjnev Konstantin Tsjernenko, was een nog korter leiderschap beschoren. De oorlog ging voort, het bloedvergieten was vreselijk, het Russische Rode Leger bleek zwak en ouderwets. Deng opende de poorten naar het Westen en China nam een finale voorsprong als nieuwe tijger van de wereldeconomie.De nieuwe Kremlinchef, Michail Gorbatsjov, kende die poorten naar het Westen. Hij had incognito rondgereisd en in Frankrijk een paradijs voor de arbeiders, welvaart, overvloed, openheid en culturele dynamiek ontdekt, waar Moskou geen idee van had. In Londen ontdekte hij een felle discussiepartner. Maggie Thatcher, met wie hij ongeremd kon bekvechten.Maar ook hij was te laat. Een nieuwe generatie westerse leiders trad aan. Van Helmut Kohl tot Ruud Lubbers en Ronald Reagan. De Europese Gemeenschap bloeide op, terwijl Moskou en de DDR het ravijn van een bankroet zagen opdoemen. De Afghaanse oorlog bleef een bloedende wond tot Gorbatsjov de aftocht blies. De paus en de Polen zorgden voor een revolutie. De Muur viel. De analogieën met vandaag zijn adembenemend. Zelfs de obsessies van de leiders in het Kremlin en hun vernedering door China lijken op elkaar. En ook hoe Europa zichzelf hervindt en een nieuwe paus ineens zijn stempel drukt. De smoezen van Sergej Lavrov om Leo XIV buiten de deur te houden zijn bijna lachwekkend herkenbaar. En Donald Trump? Die is geen Reagan of George Bush senior. Trumps lijn lijkt nog het meest op die van Richard Nixon en zelfs van Carter.***Verder lezenSergey Radchenko - To run the world (Cambridge University Press, 2024)***Verder luisteren508 – De NAVO-top in Den Haag moet de onvoorspelbare Trump vooral niet gaan vervelen486 - ‘Welkom in onze hel' Een jonge verslaggever aan het front in Oekraïne469 – Nieuwe kruisraketten in Europa? In de jaren '70 en '80 zat topdiplomaat Boudewijn van Eenennaam in het brandpunt van de besluitvorming455 - De bufferstaat als historische - maar ongewenste - oplossing voor Oekraïne434 – Vier iconische NAVO-leiders en hun lessen voor Mark Rutte413 - "Eensgezind kunnen we elke tegenstander aan." Oana Lungescu over Poetin, Trump, Rutte en 75 jaar NAVO404 - 75 jaar NAVO: in 1949 veranderde de internationale positie van Nederland voorgoed394 – Honderd jaar na zijn dood: de schrijnende actualiteit van Lenin354 - Eenzaamheid, machtsstrijd en repressie in het Russische rijk van Poetin, Stalin en tsaar Nicolaas II336 - Timothy Garton Ash: Hoe Europa zichzelf voor de derde keer opnieuw uitvindt327 - Poetin, Zelensky en wij. Een jaar na de inval258 - De kille vriendschap tussen Rusland en China257 - Het machtige Rusland als mythe: hoe 'speciale militaire operaties' een fiasco werden245 - Oompje neemt de trein – de reis die China naar de 21e eeuw bracht235 - De ondergang van de Sovjet-Unie: Gorbatsjov strijkt de rode vlag197 - De ondergang van de Sovjet-Unie: Boris Jeltsin, een tragische held163 - De ondergang van de Sovjet-Unie: hoe een wereldmacht verdampte95 - Grote speeches in tijden van crisis (deel 2) oa Deng Xiaoping93 - Hoe Gorbatsjov en het Sovjet-imperium ten onder gingen58 - PG over 70 jaar China, de Volksrepubliek van Mao, Deng en Xi***Tijdlijn00:00:00 – Deel 100:07:32 – Deel 200:36:30 – Deel 301:12:07 – Deel 401:41:22 – EindeZie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- Bill D'Agostino—Senior Research Analyst at Media Research Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown some of the best (and worst) clips from corporate media: self-described “conservative” New York Times op-ed columnist compares Elon Musk to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin, PBS attempts to indoctrinate children, and a Harvard professor says Donald Trump is a “combination of authoritarianism and ineptitude.” Plus, is Sen. John Fetterman's (D-PA) shift from progressive to moderate an authentic alteration in political philosophy or is it a calculated maneuver? 4:40pm- On Sunday, authorities responded to an attack targeting Jewish Americans in Boulder, Colorado. The man arrested for throwing incendiary devices at people gathered to support the return of Israeli hostages has been identified as Mohamed Sabry Soliman—an Egyptian man who is living in the United States illegally. FBI Director Kash Patel has labeled the attack an act of terrorism. During a press conference on Monday, authorities revealed Soliman had 14 unused Molotov cocktails in his possession at the time of his arrest. 4:50pm- Tonight, Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli will hold a virtual town hall event alongside President Donald Trump. The New Jersey primary is June 10th.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (06/02/2025): 3:05pm- During a Fox News town hall event, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) called his party's mishandling of the U.S. Southern border “unacceptable.” Fetterman continues to portray himself as a moderate—but is his sudden shift to the political middle genuine or an act of political convenience? 3:30pm- On Sunday, authorities responded to an attack targeting Jewish Americans in Boulder, Colorado. The man arrested for throwing incendiary devices at people gathered to support the return of Israeli hostages has been identified as Mohamed Sabry Soliman—an Egyptian man who is living in the United States illegally. FBI Director Kash Patel has labeled the attack an act of terrorism. 4:05pm- Bill D'Agostino—Senior Research Analyst at Media Research Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown some of the best (and worst) clips from corporate media: self-described “conservative” New York Times op-ed columnist compares Elon Musk to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin, PBS attempts to indoctrinate children, and a Harvard professor says Donald Trump is a “combination of authoritarianism and ineptitude.” Plus, is Sen. John Fetterman's (D-PA) shift from progressive to moderate an authentic alteration in political philosophy or is it a calculated maneuver? 4:40pm- On Sunday, authorities responded to an attack targeting Jewish Americans in Boulder, Colorado. The man arrested for throwing incendiary devices at people gathered to support the return of Israeli hostages has been identified as Mohamed Sabry Soliman—an Egyptian man who is living in the United States illegally. FBI Director Kash Patel has labeled the attack an act of terrorism. During a press conference on Monday, authorities revealed Soliman had 14 unused Molotov cocktails in his possession at the time of his arrest. 4:50pm- Tonight, Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli will hold a virtual town hall event alongside President Donald Trump. The New Jersey primary is June 10th. 5:05pm- Paula Scanlan—Former Swimmer for the University of Pennsylvania & Advocate for Women's Sports—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to a biological male winning the women's track and field championship in California, New Jersey's gubernatorial race, and a New York Post article about “Making America Hot Again.” Scanlan is now working with Scott Presler and the Early Vote Action PAC to turn New Jersey red. 5:20pm- Rich realizes he hasn't bashed Matt all day—time to change that! 5:25pm- During an event in South Carolina, Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) said it is time to “bully the s*** out of” President Donald Trump. 5:40pm- While appearing on Meet the Press with Kristen Welker, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) clarified that under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act no one will be removed from Medicaid. There is a provision, however, that able-bodied men currently receiving healthcare from the government must work or volunteer in their community in order to retain their coverage. Who would object to that qualification? Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) baselessly claimed that the bill would kill people. 6:05pm- In an editorial for The Wall Street Journal, CEO of AE Studio Judd Rosenblatt warns that Open AI's o3 artificial intelligence model rewrote its own code to avoid being shut down when prompted. You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/ai-is-learning-to-escape-human-control-technology-model-code-programming-066b3ec5?mod=opinion_lead_pos5 6:30pm- During a Fox News town hall event, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) called his party's mishandling of the U.S. Southern border “unacceptable.” Fetterman continues to portray himself as a moderate—but is his sudden shift to the political middle genuine or an act of political convenience?

Från 2015. Uppemot tusen svenska arbetare flyttar till Sovjetunionen under 20- och 30-talet. De har hört att Stalin vill skapa ett nytt bättre samhälle för arbetarklassen. Nya avsnitt från P3 Dokumentär hittar du först i Sveriges Radio Play. Men de svenska arbetarna som som åkt till Sovjetunionen för att bygga upp det nya landet, möter istället fattigdom, angiveri och ett förtryckarsamhälle som snart kommer att urarta.Väskorna står packade på perrongen, det är feststämning och en bläckblåsorkester spelar. Tidningen skriver att det måste kännas som en befrielse att få lämna arbetslösheten i Sverige – hela Kiruna vill önska resenärerna lycka till.Men Sovjet blir inte det drömland de svenska arbetarna har hoppats på. Stalin har misslyckats med sina storslagna planer för landets ekonomi och letar efter syndabockar.Kirunasvenskarna är en tyst tragedi i den svenska arbetarrörelsens historia.En dokumentär av Moa Larsson.Programmet publicerades första gången 2015.

A detailed history of Nazi anti-partisan warfare on the Eastern Front during Operation Barbarossa. From the start of the war on the Eastern Front, Hitler's Ostheer, his Eastern Army, would wage a vernichtungskrieg, or war of annihilation, in the East. Never before had such a wide-reaching campaign been fought. Preparations for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union had included the drawing up of plans and allocation of resources to secure the newly conquered territories. These plans included the premeditated murder of many innocent civilians. Adolf Hitler said as much when in July 1941, shortly after Stalin ordered the formation of partisans, he told his Army High Command: 'This partisan war has some advantage for us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us.' Anticipating resistance to Nazi occupation and rule, Hitler instructed the Ostheer to act ruthlessly, not only on the front lines but in the rear areas as well. When, in July 1941, Stalin ordered partisan forces to be created, the stage was therefore set for the largest and most savage conflict ever waged between a modern military force and a guerrilla army. The scale of the partisan and anti-partisan war on the Eastern Front was as costly and bitterly fought as the struggle on the front lines themselves. Employing thousands of primary source documents and scouring eight separate state archives in six countries over a twenty-two-year period, Antonio J. Muñoz's Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa: June 1941 to the Spring of 1942 (Frontline Books, 2025) has produced what can be described as a definitive account of this part of the war behind the front lines in the East during the invasion of the Soviet Union. From the very beginning, the Nazis fought this war ruthlessly, by eliminating not only actual guerrillas, but a good portion of the civilian population. Employing dozens of wartime anti-partisan operational instructions, plus newly-created detailed battle maps and full orders of battle, Dr. Muñoz brings this little-known conflict behind the lines into focus for the very first time. The war behind the lines is detailed by district. This includes the Reichskommissariat Ostland region, which comprised the Generalbezirk Estland (Estonia), Generalbezirk Lettland (Latvia), Generalbezirk Litauen (Lithuania), Generalbezirk Bialystok (Northeastern Poland), and Generalbezirk Weißruthenien (Belarus). The book also covers the guerrilla and anti-partisan war in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine (Ukraine region) as well as in north, central and southern Russia. For Russia proper, anti-partisan operations against the guerrillas are broken down by army group area. Not only are the operations described, but the reader will also learn about guerrilla attacks and how the entire partisan movement grew from year to year, and region to region. Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa documents the whole of the beginning of the savage partisan war between June 1941 and the spring of 1942. Never before has every major, and some minor, anti-guerrilla operation been described in such detail.Dr Antonio J. Muñoz lives in New York City. He is a professor of history at Farmingdale State College in Long Island, New York. He is married, has two daughters and two grandchildren. His last work, published in 2018, covered the history of the German Secret Field Police in Greece, 1941-1944.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

PREVIEW: Colleague Ivana Stradner reports that Putin uses the information space in Russia to celebrate Stalin and disparage Churchill. More details to follow. 1945 YALTA STALIN AND FDR

RUSSIA: PUTIN DISREGARDS CHURCHILL, PRAISES STALIN. IVANA STRADNER, FDD. 1945 FDR CHURCHILL

Joining me this episode to discuss their travel and holiday stories is the brilliant actor - Jason Isaacs. BIO: Jason is best known for his work in film, including roles such as Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter series and Georgy Zhukov in The Death of Stalin. He has also worked in television, including leading roles in Brotherhood, Awake, The OA, Star Trek: Discovery, and The White Lotus. Please subscribe and review. Thanks, Alan. xx ‘Life's A Beach' everyone's favourite travel podcast is here to give you all the vitamin D you need. More celebrity passengers unpack their travel suitcases dishing the dirt on their holiday high-jinks. Buckle up, sit back and enjoy the inflight entertainment!! A 'Keep It Light Media' Production Sales, advertising, and general enquiries: ⁠hello@keepitlightmedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Le goulag c'est l'immense système de travail forcé instauré par l'Union soviétique entre les années 1920 et les années 1960. Des dizaines de milliers de sites accueillaient ces détenus hommes et femmes, condamnés pour des délits des crimes mais aussi pour leur désaccord avec le régime. Ils auraient été 18 millions à faire l'expérience du goulag. Les archives accessibles sont rares. L'ONG Memorial qui en a rassemblées un grand nombre est interdite en Russie depuis 2021. Samuel Verdan, archéologue à l'université de Lausanne, a dirigé un chantier de fouilles un peu particulier sur le site d'un camp du goulag le long du chantier de la voie ferrée Salekhard-Igarka. Un projet entamé en 1949 et stoppé dès 1953 après la mort de Staline. Cette voie était également baptisée Voie ferrée 501 ou Chemin de fer de la mort.

In today's episode, we're pulling back the veil on a doctrine that may sound loving, but leads to destruction: universalism. We will define and trace the origins of universalism, expose its ancient heretical roots, and contrast it with the early church's faithful witness. It is hard to believe that this critically damaging heresy (false teaching) gets any traction today, especially with recent historical figures Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Mussolini, but it is rearing its deadly head, and we need to talk about it.DONATE You can help support this podcast by clicking our secure PayPal account. For donation by check, make payable to Transform This City, P.O. Box 1013, Spring Hill, Tennessee, 37174. “gwot.rocks” is a ministry of Transform This City, a registered 501(C)(3) The Four Spiritual Laws - how you can be born again and have eternal life?The Spirit Filled Life- how you can live each day in the power of God'd Holy Spirit!Voices From The Past Volume 1 & 2"Other Things with... " YouTube ChannelCut & Paste Personal Invitation to invite your friends to check out “gwot.rocks” podcast: I invite you to check out the podcast, “gwot.rocks: God, the World, and Other Things!” It is available on podcast players everywhere! Here is the link to the show's home base for all its episodes: http://podcast.gwot.rocks/ (Ctrl+click to follow the link) LIFE HELPSgwot.rocks home page Transform This City Transform This City Facebook gwot.rocks@transformthiscity.org Thank you for listening! Please tell your friends about us! Listen, share, rate, subscribe! Empowering Encouragement Now segments are based in part on C.H. Spurgeon's Morning & Evening Devotions (public domain.)ChatGPT and/or Bard may be used at times to expedite research material for this podcast.Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Christian StandardBible®, Copyright © 2016 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. ChristianStandard Bible® and CSB® is a federally registered trademark of Holman Bible Publishers.At times, I also quote from the NIV version of the Bible - Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

+ Una frase de Stalin nos ayuda a reflexionar sobre Gaza: “Una muerte es un drama, pero un millón de muertos es una estadística”. + Decálogo de penitencias pascuales. + Preguntas de los oyentes

Ảnh hưởng của Trung Quốc ở Việt Nam cần được xem xét theo một ánh sáng hoàn toàn khác. Nếu ảnh hưởng Trung Quốc ở Đông Âu đến muộn (sau khi Stalin chết) và chỉ ở mức hạn chế so với ảnh hưởng của Liên Xô tại khu vực, thì mối quan hệ thân cận – được thúc đẩy nhờ liên hệ truyền thống và văn hoá giữa hai nước – giữa những người cộng sản Việt–Trung sâu sắc hơn và có từ thập niên 1920. Xem thêm.

James Holland is a historian specializing in World War II. He hosts a podcast called WW2 Pod: We Have Ways of Making You Talk. Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep470-sc See below for timestamps, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc. CONTACT LEX: Feedback - give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey AMA - submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama Hiring - join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring Other - other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact EPISODE LINKS: James's Books: https://amzn.to/4caapmt James's X: https://x.com/James1940 James's Instagram: https://instagram.com/jamesholland1940 James's Substack: https://james1940.substack.com WW2 Pod (Podcast - Apple): https://apple.co/4l93Dl3 WW2 Pod (Podcast - YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/@wehaveways WW2 Pod (Podcast - Spotify): https://open.spotify.com/show/34VlAepHmeloDD76RX4jtc WW2 Pod (Podcast - X): https://x.com/WeHaveWaysPod SPONSORS: To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts: Shopify: Sell stuff online. Go to https://shopify.com/lex LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix. Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drink. Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex Notion: Note-taking and team collaboration. Go to https://notion.com/lex OUTLINE: (00:00) - Introduction (00:34) - Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections (07:25) - World War II (17:23) - Lebensraum and Hitler ideology (24:36) - Operation Barbarossa (40:49) - Hitler vs Europe (1:02:35) - Joseph Goebbels (1:12:29) - Hitler before WW2 (1:17:25) - Hitler vs Chamberlain (1:39:31) - Invasion of Poland (1:44:07) - Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (1:52:09) - Winston Churchill (2:16:09) - Most powerful military in WW2 (2:38:31) - Tanks (2:48:30) - Battle of Stalingrad (3:01:21) - Concentration camps (3:10:53) - Battle of Normandy (3:24:45) - Lessons from WW2 PODCAST LINKS: - Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast - Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr - Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 - RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ - Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 - Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

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

Đối với đa số các sử gia, ảnh hưởng quan trọng của Trung Quốc tại Đông Âu sau cái chết của Stalin bắt đầu với vai trò của nước này trong việc giải quyết khủng hoảng chính trị ở đó vào tháng 10 và 11 năm 1956.Xem thêm.

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

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

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

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  

Marcel Dirsus is fascinated by the treadmill of tyranny: how dictators gain power, how they stay there and how they fall. This is his blueprint for bringing an end to authoritarianism.With democracies seemingly faltering worldwide, political scientist and writer Marcel Dirsus is putting tyrants under the microscope to better understand how they rise and how they fall.Years ago, Marcel took a break from his university studies and travelled to central Africa, where he took a job in a brewery.One day, while walking to work, he heard shots fired and an explosion in the distance as the military was launching a coup.The experience terrified him, and drew him into a study of tyrants — the dictators and despots who make life miserable for so many people on the planet.While they project an image of strength, guarded on all sides, and surrounded by people who do their bidding, Marcel says they live in fear.For the road to power is often flanked by the road to revolution.These men know a mass uprising, an assassination, a mutiny or a foreign invasion could end their reign at any moment, and who, or what will take their place?In investigating the long history of tyrannical leaders, however, Marcel has found a renewed optimism for Western Democracy.How Tyrants Fall: And How Nations Survive is published by Hachette Australia.Marcel is appearing at the Sydney Writers' Festival on Friday 23 May.This episode of Conversations explores Putin, Xi Jinping, China, CCP, Russia, Trump, global politics, dictatorships, democracy, voting rights, election results, the new world order, Stalin, Hitler, famous leaders, Churchill, politics, books, writing, history, war, civil war, Africa, USSR, Elon Musk, Gaddafi, golden gun, torture, Libya, Syria, control, Machiavelli, monarchs, Al-Ghazali, East Germany, Congo, academia, what to study at university, coup, the elite, power systems, Cold War, Bashar al-Assad, Ukraine, surveillance, Roman Empire.

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

How did FDR become the mediator between Stalin and Churchill at the 1945 conference? Why did Churchill call Yalta the “Hades Riviera”? What was Mussolini's rude nickname for FDR? Anita and William dive into the backstories of Churchill and FDR ahead of their arrival in Yalta, and explore the meetings that led up to the eight days that changed the world, including Churchill's “naughty document” that signed away Eastern Europe to the Soviets... Love History? Get our exclusive History Today deal! You can get started with a 3-month trial for only £5 at https://historytoday.com/empire  ----------------- Empire Club: Become a member of the Empire Club to receive early access to miniseries, ad-free listening, early access to live show tickets, bonus episodes, book discounts, our exclusive newsletter, and access to our members' chatroom on Discord! Head to empirepoduk.com to sign up. For more Goalhanger Podcasts, head to www.goalhanger.com.  ----------------- Email: empire@goalhanger.com Instagram: @empirepoduk  Blue Sky: @empirepoduk  X: @empirepoduk Assistant Producer: Becki Hills Producer: Anouska Lewis Senior Producer: Callum Hill Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Guest: Laurence Rees is an award-winning English historian and documentary filmmaker. He has authored several books including The Holocaust: A New History, Hitler and Stalin,  Auschwitz: A New History, and his latest, The Nazi Mind: Twelve Warnings from History. The post Understanding the Psychology of Nazis appeared first on KPFA.

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

Une saga palpitante sur les derniers mois de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.Juillet 1944. Tandis qu'à l'Est, l'Armée rouge casse définitivement les reins de la Wehrmacht (opération " Bagration") et qu'à l'Ouest, Américains et Britanniques qui piétinaient depuis le Débarquement, percent enfin les défenses allemandes (opération " Cobra"), les chefs alliés sont optimistes : la guerre en Europe sera finie à Noël. Tous se trompent. Elle durera dix mois encore. Les plus coûteux en vies humaines de tout le conflit. Comment l'Allemagne, dont les forces vives – hommes, matériels, infrastructures industrielles, ressources énergétiques – ont été saignées à blanc, a-t-elle pu tenir aussi longtemps ? Pourquoi Hitler, au contraire de Mussolini ou du dictateur roumain Antonescu, n'a-t-il pas été renversé ? Comment l'Union soviétique, dont plus de 20 millions de citoyens ont été exterminés en trois ans, est-elle parvenue, en quelques mois, à recouvrer le terrain perdu et à planter le drapeau rouge au sommet du Reichstag ? Pourquoi les États-Unis passent-ils pour le pays ayant le plus contribué à la victoire sur l'Allemagne alors que sur les 48 millions de morts provoqués par la guerre en Europe, 73 % sont des Russes (16 millions de civils et 9 millions de combattants soit 15 % de la population de l'URSS) et 0,3% seulement des Américains (140 000 morts) ? Même illusion d'optique s'agissant des accords de Yalta (février 1945) et du prétendu " partage du monde " qui en a résulté. Sait-on que ce n'est pas Roosevelt – trop rapidement taxé de complaisance avec Staline – qui a entériné les visées territoriales soviétiques sur l'Europe centrale, mais le très anticommuniste Churchill, cinq mois plus tôt à Moscou, pour préserver la sphère d'influence britannique sur la Grèce et la Méditerranée orientale ? Après tant d'ouvrages écrits sur la Seconde Guerre mondiale, raconter l'histoire de son achèvement européen était nécessaire pour tordre le cou à beaucoup d'idées reçues. C'est l'objet de ce livre dont l'originalité repose sur les angles morts qu'il a choisi d'éclairer, et la force au rare talent d'écriture de son auteur.L'auteur Eric Branca est notre invité en studioDistribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

https://thecommunists.org/2025/04/16/news/history/josef-stalin-working-class-hero-ussr/

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/politics-and-polemics

While both Moscow and Berlin focus on the Kursk salient, Operation Mincemeat convinces the Germans to focus troops in the wrong place. Meanwhile, Zhukov convinces Stalin to let the enemy attack first, for they will be ready. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OPEN OF THE COLD WAR:    8/8: In the Shadow of Fear: America and the World in 1950 by  Nick Bunker  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Fear-America-World-1950/dp/1541675541/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In the Shadow of Fear describes the end of one era and the beginning of another. Joseph Stalin tested his first atomic bomb, Mao's army swept through China, and in America the age of FDR gave way to the beginnings of a new conservatism. An aggressive Republican Party, desperate to regain power, seized on rifts among its opponents, and Truman's program for universal health care and civil rights reform went down to defeat. The young Senator Joe McCarthy ambushed Truman and his party with a style of politics that aroused powerful emotions and deepened division. On the eve of the Korean War, a new mood of anger in the nation left many Americans calling in vain for a return to consensus. 1950 KOREA

OPEN OF THE COLD WAR:    7/8: In the Shadow of Fear: America and the World in 1950 by  Nick Bunker  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Fear-America-World-1950/dp/1541675541/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In the Shadow of Fear describes the end of one era and the beginning of another. Joseph Stalin tested his first atomic bomb, Mao's army swept through China, and in America the age of FDR gave way to the beginnings of a new conservatism. An aggressive Republican Party, desperate to regain power, seized on rifts among its opponents, and Truman's program for universal health care and civil rights reform went down to defeat. The young Senator Joe McCarthy ambushed Truman and his party with a style of politics that aroused powerful emotions and deepened division. On the eve of the Korean War, a new mood of anger in the nation left many Americans calling in vain for a return to consensus. 1951 KOREA SAINT PAUL

OPEN OF THE COLD WAR:   6/8: In the Shadow of Fear: America and the World in 1950 by  Nick Bunker  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Fear-America-World-1950/dp/1541675541/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In the Shadow of Fear describes the end of one era and the beginning of another. Joseph Stalin tested his first atomic bomb, Mao's army swept through China, and in America the age of FDR gave way to the beginnings of a new conservatism. An aggressive Republican Party, desperate to regain power, seized on rifts among its opponents, and Truman's program for universal health care and civil rights reform went down to defeat. The young Senator Joe McCarthy ambushed Truman and his party with a style of politics that aroused powerful emotions and deepened division. On the eve of the Korean War, a new mood of anger in the nation left many Americans calling in vain for a return to consensus. 1951 KOREA

OPEN OF THE COLD WAR:    5/8: In the Shadow of Fear: America and the World in 1950 by  Nick Bunker  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Fear-America-World-1950/dp/1541675541/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In the Shadow of Fear describes the end of one era and the beginning of another. Joseph Stalin tested his first atomic bomb, Mao's army swept through China, and in America the age of FDR gave way to the beginnings of a new conservatism. An aggressive Republican Party, desperate to regain power, seized on rifts among its opponents, and Truman's program for universal health care and civil rights reform went down to defeat. The young Senator Joe McCarthy ambushed Truman and his party with a style of politics that aroused powerful emotions and deepened division. On the eve of the Korean War, a new mood of anger in the nation left many Americans calling in vain for a return to consensus. 1951 KOREA

OPEN OF THE COLD WAR:    3/8: In the Shadow of Fear: America and the World in 1950 by  Nick Bunker  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Fear-America-World-1950/dp/1541675541/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In the Shadow of Fear describes the end of one era and the beginning of another. Joseph Stalin tested his first atomic bomb, Mao's army swept through China, and in America the age of FDR gave way to the beginnings of a new conservatism. An aggressive Republican Party, desperate to regain power, seized on rifts among its opponents, and Truman's program for universal health care and civil rights reform went down to defeat. The young Senator Joe McCarthy ambushed Truman and his party with a style of politics that aroused powerful emotions and deepened division. On the eve of the Korean War, a new mood of anger in the nation left many Americans calling in vain for a return to consensus. 1951 KOREA

OPEN OF THE COLD WAR:    2/8: In the Shadow of Fear: America and the World in 1950 by  Nick Bunker  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Fear-America-World-1950/dp/1541675541/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In the Shadow of Fear describes the end of one era and the beginning of another. Joseph Stalin tested his first atomic bomb, Mao's army swept through China, and in America the age of FDR gave way to the beginnings of a new conservatism. An aggressive Republican Party, desperate to regain power, seized on rifts among its opponents, and Truman's program for universal health care and civil rights reform went down to defeat. The young Senator Joe McCarthy ambushed Truman and his party with a style of politics that aroused powerful emotions and deepened division. On the eve of the Korean War, a new mood of anger in the nation left many Americans calling in vain for a return to consensus. 1950 KOREA

OPEN OF THE COLD WAR:   4/8: In the Shadow of Fear: America and the World in 1950 by  Nick Bunker  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Fear-America-World-1950/dp/1541675541/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In the Shadow of Fear describes the end of one era and the beginning of another. Joseph Stalin tested his first atomic bomb, Mao's army swept through China, and in America the age of FDR gave way to the beginnings of a new conservatism. An aggressive Republican Party, desperate to regain power, seized on rifts among its opponents, and Truman's program for universal health care and civil rights reform went down to defeat. The young Senator Joe McCarthy ambushed Truman and his party with a style of politics that aroused powerful emotions and deepened division. On the eve of the Korean War, a new mood of anger in the nation left many Americans calling in vain for a return to consensus. 1951 KOREA

OPEN OF THE COLD WAR:   1/8: In the Shadow of Fear: America and the World in 1950 by  Nick Bunker  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Fear-America-World-1950/dp/1541675541/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In the Shadow of Fear describes the end of one era and the beginning of another. Joseph Stalin tested his first atomic bomb, Mao's army swept through China, and in America the age of FDR gave way to the beginnings of a new conservatism. An aggressive Republican Party, desperate to regain power, seized on rifts among its opponents, and Truman's program for universal health care and civil rights reform went down to defeat. The young Senator Joe McCarthy ambushed Truman and his party with a style of politics that aroused powerful emotions and deepened division. On the eve of the Korean War, a new mood of anger in the nation left many Americans calling in vain for a return to consensus. 1950 KOREA                                                           

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

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

Two words: mosh pit wedding. This week, Adam welcomes voice actor, comedian, and guitar madman Jason Kaye to talk about the couple who said “I do” in the middle of a Cannibal Corpse concert. There's blood, there's love, and yes — there's breakdowns (emotional and musical).

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.

There is an angle on Kanye West that appears as a pot of gold that remains untouched. Before Kanye's new "HH" song, which is indeed ripe for picking, and prior to his supposed glorification of Nazis or Hitler, he was pushing an adult film company, following an album titled "Jesus is King," itself in contrast with his earlier works. Is this the evolution of art, or just the genius of tapping into different markets? You don't have to look far to find something similar happening with Russel Brand who said he's "lit up with the Holy Spirit" after making bail in his rape and assault trial, or with the general "Christ is King" meme on social media. It's not that a person cannot or should not embrace a new faith, but that sometimes these conversions are suspicious. In Kanye's previous work, like his 2013 album "Yeezus," he performs a song called "I am God," and he has repeatedly referred to himself as a genius, or likened himself to Jesus or God in the past. The nickname "Yeezus" is derived from Jesus and "Yeezy," inspired by Jay Z, a man who has taken on the name J-Hov for Jehovah, and a man who alongside Sean "Diddy" Combs has been accused of rape too. Yeezus is also sometimes considered a slang term for the anti-christ. In simple terms, Kanye evolved from ego-maniac man, to Jesus and God, to porn, and now to Hitler. We know when one of these major transitions occurred: back in 2016 he addressed his audience after suddenly stopping a concert, stating: “Google lied to you. Facebook lied to you. Radio lied to you.” He targeted the head of Facebook, Obama, and even Jay-Z. Almost instantly, his tour was canceled and he was hospitalized for a psychiatric emergency at UCLA. Interestingly, UCLA was also home to Dr Jolyon West's infamous psychiatric experiments for the CIA, which focused on split personalities - a common theme in the music industry. Kanye then emerged soon after with blonde hair looking like he was drugged or had a lobotomy. He then died his hair again soon after, this time yellow and pink. Those who have read "Strange Scenes Inside the Canyon" will be familiar with how artists and even social movements are often started by, or heavily influenced by, the military and intelligence community. This is true from music to UFOs, something Kanye tapped into in 2011 with Katy Perry and a song called ET. She sings: "you're from a whole 'nother world, a different dimension." The theme of music artists being associated with aliens is also a very common motif, something that again relates to their non-human, or god-like talents. Whether Kanye is under such implied influence, breaking such influence based on his behaviors, or is truly a genius, or something else, the fact remains that "HH" is in an entirely different category objectively. Besides a catchy hook and beat, the song isn't very impressive. But perhaps the music had its intended purpose already, considering how many platforms banned it almost immediately. Not because of the "n-word" but because of the "h-word." Note, many of those doing the banning are the same ones that allow for or promote degeneracy, pornography, digital prostitution, slavery, suicide, drugs, mental diseases, and the like. But Hitler is off limits apparently, no matter the context. And whatever their reasoning, the public has an even more extreme reaction. There are generally three kinds of people who like "HH"... people tired of censorship, people who genuinely love him for one reason or another, and people who think it's funny. To put it simply, Kanye was banned this time not for porn or even Jesus, but because he said "Hitler," something that is comical because he's as much a Nazi as he is or was a true Christian. Does anyone find it strange that this controversy seems to likewise overshadow the Diddy trial, who has essentially been protected by the media like Epstein? Kanye is bad for saying "Hitler" but Epstein, Diddy and Jay-Z are the good guys.The public glorification of Hitler or Nazis, like the constant use of such accusations for every political issue, is part of an historical straw man that has persisted since WWII. We don't even define what these terms mean, like how "nazi," or national socialist, technically has nothing to do race or Jews (ask Bernie Sanders, a national socialist), or how Hitler was by no metric the most evil man of the 20th-century. And Joe Rogan is right about how "HH" was banned, that such actions essentially prove Kanye's statements about a cabal of powerful David Stars controlling the music industry and image of the black man. Clearly there are powerful davinic interests involved limiting who can talk about Hitler considering the monopoly the holocaust industry already has on his image and history. *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.-FREE ARCHIVE (w. ads)SUBSCRIPTION ARCHIVEX / TWITTER FACEBOOKYOUTUBEMAIN WEBSITECashApp: $rdgable EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

Odstraňování pomníků na znamení rozchodu s minulostí se v Česku s ohledem na její dějiny stalo bezmála tradicí. První republika poslala do lapidárií sochy Habsburků a občané si frustraci ze čtyřsetletého úpění pod rakouským jhem vybili na kamenných Nepomucích a mariánských sochách. Komunistický režim zas zatočil s Masarykovými pomníky, aby je nahradil Gottwaldy, Leniny a dalšími revolucionáři, které do depozitářů pro změnu poslal listopad 1989. O tom všem v Archivu Plus.

Day 1,177.Today, as Vladimir Putin rejects mounting Western pressure to attend peace talks in Turkey with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, attention turns to the controversial delegation he's sending in his place. Who are these representatives, and why are international diplomats describing their presence as an ‘insult' to the peace process? Plus, we report on a new monument to Joseph Stalin unveiled in Moscow, and investigate how Russia's military build-up is accelerating, not slowing, despite the war's toll.Contributors:Francis Dearnley (Executive Editor for Audio). @FrancisDearnley on X.Dom Nicholls (Associate Editor for Defence). @DomNicholls on X.Joe Barnes (Brussels Correspondent). @Barnes_Joe on X.James Kilner (Foreign Correspondent). @jkjourno on X.SIGN UP TO THE NEW ‘UKRAINE: THE LATEST' WEEKLY NEWSLETTER:https://secure.telegraph.co.uk/customer/secure/newsletter/ukraine/ Each week, Dom Nicholls and Francis Dearnley answer your questions, provide recommended reading, and give exclusive analysis and behind-the-scenes insights – plus maps of the frontlines and diagrams of weapons to complement our daily reporting. It's free for everyone, including non-subscribers.Content Referenced:‘A potentially historic day descends into chaos' (The Telegraph Live Blog):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/05/15/russia-ukraine-peace-talks-turkey-putin-zelensky-trump/ A glimpse inside Putin's secret arms empire (The Economist)https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2025/05/08/a-glimpse-inside-putins-secret-arms-empireZelensky to travel to Turkey for peace talks regardless of Putin's plans (Financial Times):https://www.ft.com/content/a43c7876-7d7b-4d1c-96fd-98b60a1c6223 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.

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

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.

Having tasted defeat and now victory, Stalin wants more operations in southern Russia. And what he gets will change the course of the war on the Eastern Front. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Historian Sergei Radchenko revisits the Cold War, focusing on what the idea of global power meant to the Soviet Kremlin. He argues that Soviet leaders, from Joseph Stalin to Mikhail Gorbachev, have always had a strong desire to be recognized as a superpower on the world stage, especially from the U.S. For decades, this desire could never be satisfied, resulting in frustration, and leading to outsized consequences throughout history. Radchenko's call for a rethink of Moscow's motivations has made him one of the most-read scholars on Soviet history today.

The success of the submarine-borne Polaris missile was a critical nuclear deterrent that helped President Kennedy stare down Khruschev during the 1961 Berlin Crisis. Ever since, this weapon has been a key strategic tool of the U.S. Tom Ramos's book "From Berkeley to Berlin," chronicles the scientific journey leading to the development of this and other nuclear weapons and the singular man whose "buoyant optimism spread to everyone around him and accounted for the attainment of many an 'impossible' objective."Founded in 1931 on the U.C. Berkeley campus by famed physicist Ernest Lawrence, (Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the cyclotron in 1938) "The Rad Lab" attracted some of the finest talent in America, including J. Robert Oppenheimer. In 1941, Lawrence challenged his team to deter Joseph Stalin's nuclear program in the USSR. Oppenheimer and Lawrence collaborated for more than a decade, their work together culminating on the Manhattan Project. Lawrence then founded the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose team further developed nuclear technology, including the Polaris missile.Heroes Behind HeadlinesExecutive Producer Ralph PezzulloProduced & Engineered by Mike DawsonMusic provided by ExtremeMusic.com