Explaining History

In this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we examine the American withdrawal from Iraq – the product of Trump's war with Iran, and a strategic defeat of historic proportions. Iraq has been enormously important to the United States since the end of the Cold War. It has served multiple strategic, foreign policy and domestic purposes. Its loss – the effective expulsion of American power from the country – is an epic disaster unfolding in slow motion. It doesn't look like the British retreat from Afghanistan in the 1840s, but it is a catastrophe nonetheless. The war against Iran has achieved the opposite of everything it intended. It has cost America its bases in the Persian Gulf. It has empowered the Houthi rebels in Yemen and threatened control of the Red Sea. It has surrendered the Straits of Hormuz. It has alienated the Gulf states and the Saudis. And now it has forced a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. We trace the long history of American involvement in Iraq – from the use of Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against revolutionary Iran and the Soviet Union, through the first Gulf War and the brutal sanctions regime that followed, to the catastrophic invasion of 2003. We examine the decision not to overthrow Saddam in 1991, the disbandment of the Iraqi army, the failure to understand Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions, and the looting of the National Museum – met with Rumsfeld's infamous remark that "freedom is messy." Drawing on John Gray's critique of liberal interventionism, we consider the argument that there are things worse than tyranny – and that what replaced Saddam's Leviathan was anarchy, a condition that elements of the American right seemed actively to welcome. The withdrawal from Iraq is not the orderly dismantling of empire. It is a rout – and what replaces American influence will almost certainly be Iranian. Trump has defeated his own country. Topics covered: The American withdrawal from Iraq The war against Iran and its strategic consequences Iraq as a Cold War client state The first Gulf War and the sanctions regime The 2003 invasion and its catastrophic aftermath The disbandment of the Iraqi army The looting of the National Museum John Gray on tyranny and anarchy The rise of Iranian influence in Iraq If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by historian Peter Parker to discuss the remarkable rediscovery of James Courage's A Way of Love – widely regarded as the first gay novel by a New Zealander – and what it tells us about gay life in post-war Britain. First published in 1959 and banned in New Zealand in 1961, A Way of Love has returned to print after nearly seven decades. Set in 1950s London, it follows two men attempting to build a life together at a time when sex between men remained a criminal offence. Its timing is significant: it appeared two years after the Wolfenden Report recommended that homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should no longer be criminalised, but eight years before the partial decriminalisation introduced by the Sexual Offences Act of 1967. Peter Parker, author of Some Men in London volumes one and two – acclaimed anthologies of gay life in the capital – joins us to explore this fascinating transitional moment. Drawing on James Courage's extraordinary diary as well as the novel, we examine what it meant to be a gay man in a society where prosecution, censorship and social stigma were constant threats. We discuss the geography of gay life – the private members' clubs and pubs where men could relax and be amongst their own people – and the language they used, including the secret argot of Polari. We also explore the long struggle for legal reform, the resistance of the Metropolitan Police, and the cultural shifts that helped change attitudes – from the pioneering work of the Homosexual Law Reform Society to the impact of films like Victim (1961) and John Osborne's A Patriot for Me. Peter also reflects on the "happy ever after" problem in gay history: the assumption that rights appeared by magic overnight, rather than being won through decades of struggle, persecution and sacrifice. Topics covered: James Courage, A Way of Love, and its suppression and rediscovery The criminalisation of homosexuality and the Wolfenden Report The policing of gay life and the "pretty police" Gay clubs, pubs, and cultures of solidarity Polari and coded language The Homosexual Law Reform Society and the fight for legal change Victim, A Patriot for Me, and stage censorship The pushback of AIDS and Clause 28 Memory, martyrdom, and the unfinished struggle for equality Peter Parker's Some Men in London volumes one and two are available from all good bookshops. James Courage's A Way of Love is republished by Lyric Editions. Please consider buying from an independent retailer or directly from the publisher. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. This response is AI-generated and for reference purposes only. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we return to Susan Pedersen's *The Guardians* – the definitive history of the mandate system – to examine one of its darkest chapters: the French bombing of Damascus in October 1925. The French had acquired Syria under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, though the British never really accepted their claim to it. Lawrence of Arabia had raced to Damascus in 1918 to deliver it to the Arabs – and by extension to the British – in defiance of the agreement. But the French got their mandate, and they ran it with a combination of arrogance, ignorance, and violence. The revolt that erupted in 1925 was not, as the French insisted, the work of brigands and agitators. It was the product of accumulated grievances: the division of Syria into four statelets, the creation of Greater Lebanon, the subordination of Syrian officials to French approval, the demotion of Ottoman-trained officers, and an economic policy that pegged the Syrian pound to the unstable franc. The Druze leader Sultan al-Atrash – a Syrian nationalist who had served in the Ottoman army and joined the Arab Revolt – was not a local warlord, as the French imagined, but a man with a vision of complete independence and free elections. The French response was brutal. Villages were burned. Circassian, Kurdish and Armenian irregulars were unleashed to loot and terrorise. Corpses were paraded through the streets of Damascus and strung up in Marjeh Square. And then, on 18 October 1925, French tanks rolled through the narrow streets and the bombardment began – two days of shelling and aerial bombing of an undefended city. The international outcry was immediate. The *Times* of London, hardly a radical publication, ran reports that turned colonial assumptions on their heads. Readers who knew nothing of Syrian villages could place them in the category of the primitive – but every biblically literate child had heard of Damascus. And now its ancient streets were being blasted by a European power that claimed to be a civilising force. This episode explores the bombing of Damascus as a moment of crisis for the mandate system – a moment when the gap between the rhetoric of tutelage and the reality of colonial violence became impossible to ignore. **Topics covered:** - The French acquisition of Syria under Sykes-Picot - The revolt of Sultan al-Atrash and the Druze - General Sarrail and the blindness of French colonial officials - The use of irregular forces and aerial bombardment - The bombing of Damascus, October 1925 - The international outcry and the *Times* coverage - The crisis of legitimacy for the mandate system --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

**In this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore Srinath Raghavan's brilliant *India's War: The Making of Modern South Asia, 1939–1945* – a book that places India at the centre of the Second World War, rather than at its margins.** India is frequently overlooked in histories of the Second World War. When it appears at all, it is as a source of manpower for the British Empire – a vast reservoir of soldiers and labourers to be deployed in the Middle East, Asia and Europe. But as Raghavan demonstrates, India was not simply a British asset. It was the engine of the Allied war effort in the East – and the war transformed it in ways that would lead, inexorably, to independence. By December 1941, when Nehru emerged from prison, India stood at the intersection of two major theatres of war: the Mediterranean and North Africa on one side, and South Asia, China and the Pacific on the other. The defence of India was no longer a British prerogative; it had become a focal point of Allied grand strategy. Indian politics could not be insulated from the pressures emanating from Britain's key wartime allies. Drawing on Raghavan's narrative, we trace the debates within the Congress Party as it wrestled with the question of whether to cooperate with the British war effort. Gandhi insisted on non-violence and non-participation; Nehru advocated non-participation for political reasons; a third group, led by Rajagopalachari, believed that cooperation was available – if the British did the right thing. The compromise resolution that emerged was, as Gandhi observed, "like the Indian dish *khichri*" – a mixture of pulses, rice, salt, chilli and spices. We also examine the American perspective on India, which was shaped by a mixture of exotic fantasy, missionary prejudice and strategic calculation. By 1941, the State Department had concluded that the situation in India was "very serious indeed" and that the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, was "a man of small vision." American officials took a sympathetic stance towards Congress demands, reporting that the British were following a policy of "divide and rule." Even the conservative *Reader's Digest* carried a favourable profile of Nehru. The British cabinet, alert to American opinion, took hardly any major decision on India without reference to its impact on public opinion in the United States. **Topics covered:** - India's central role in the Second World War - The Congress Party debates on cooperation and non-participation - Gandhi, Nehru and Rajagopalachari - The "Quit India" campaign and the refusal of Indian soldiers to serve - American perceptions of India and the British Raj - The strategic importance of India to the Allied war effort - The beginning of the end of the British Empire in India --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore Keith Lowe's *Prisoners of History* and the contested world of memorialisation – focusing on one of the strangest and most controversial memorial sites in Europe. Monuments occupy public space, and they impose meaning on it. Walk through any city and you'll find statues placed with particular agendas – to memorialise the past in certain ways, to place a particular interpretation on history. As a result, they are almost always contested. The recent removal of statues associated with the transatlantic slave trade, from Edward Colston in Bristol to Confederate monuments across the American South, provoked a furious reaction from the right, who framed it as a free speech issue. What they were really defending was the right of white supremacy to own and occupy public space. Keith Lowe argues that there is no escaping the monsters of our past. We can try to ignore them, rehabilitate them, or annihilate them – but their absence becomes its own kind of presence. There is only one final course open to us: ridicule. This brings us to Grūtas Park in Lithuania – a sculpture park displaying the statues of Stalin, Lenin, and other Soviet figures that were torn down after independence in 1990. Lithuania's 20th century was one of repeated invasion, occupation, and mass deportation. Around 300,000 Lithuanians were sent to Soviet gulags in the 1940s and 50s. So when independence came, the statues were decapitated, blowtorched, and dynamited. The government then stored the best-known examples in warehouses – until a former wrestling champion and mushroom farmer named Viliumas Malinauskas offered to take them off their hands and build a park. His proposals were extraordinary: tourists arriving on cattle trucks, actors dressed as guards herding them onto trains, barbed wire, guard towers, the whole gulag experience. Critics called it a "Stalin theme park." Over a million people signed a petition against it. Former partisans and political prisoners accused Malinauskas of profiting from their misery. But the park opened anyway – and became a hit. What makes Grūtas Park so interesting, and so troubling, is that it creates a space that is completely ahistorical. It was built in the era of the "end of history," when we thought we could turn the past into a meaningless theme park. History didn't end. Spoiler alert. **Topics covered:** - Keith Lowe's *Prisoners of History* - The contest over public memorials and public space - Francis Galton, eugenics, and the limits of ridicule - Lithuania's experience of Soviet and Nazi occupation - The fate of Stalin and Lenin statues after 1990 - Viliumas Malinauskas and the creation of Grūtas Park - The petition, the protests, and the constitutional court ruling - The postmodern, ahistorical aesthetics of the park - The "end of history" and its illusions --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore the Macmillan years – that remarkable, contradictory period of post-war British history when the country was forced to confront its diminished place in the world, even as it sought to cling to the vestiges of imperial power. When Anthony Eden led Britain into the Suez Crisis in 1956, he did so believing that Britain could still act unilaterally on the world stage. The rebuke from Eisenhower told a different story. The crisis exposed the weakness of Britain's post-war economy, triggered a run on the reserves, and revealed that the country could no longer act without American permission. Harold Macmillan – who became Chancellor in the aftermath and then Prime Minister in January 1957 – understood the lesson. Suez had been a tactical defeat, he told his cabinet, but it could yet prove "the prelude to a strategic victory." What followed was a decade of managed decline: the military budget was cut, national service was abolished, and the white paper on defence argued that spending 10% of gross national income on defence was excessive. Drawing on Kenneth Morgan's *The People's Peace*, we examine the "one nation Toryism" that characterised Macmillan's government – a form of liberal conservatism that would be denounced by today's Tory party as "creeping Bolshevism." We trace the withdrawal from empire: the end of the Mau Mau emergency in Kenya, the winding up of the Cyprus troubles, the independence of Ghana and Nigeria, and Macmillan's famous "wind of change" speech before the South African parliament in 1960. But we also confront the darker side of British decolonisation – the concentration camps and torture in Kenya, the police state in Nyasaland, and the selective memory that allows Britain to present its retreat from empire as "relatively tranquil and civilised." **Topics covered:** - The aftermath of Suez and the reality of decline - Macmillan's "strategic victory" and one nation Toryism - The 1957 Defence White Paper and massive retaliation - The abolition of national service - The end of the Mau Mau emergency and the Hola Camp scandal - The Cyprus settlement and the release of Archbishop Makarios - Macmillan's "wind of change" speech - The dissolution of the Central African Federation - Britain's diminishing role in the Middle East - The intervention in Jordan, 1958 - Parallels with American decline today --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

MI6 and the First World War – The Birth of the Secret State In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore the origins of MI6 – the Secret Intelligence Service – during the First World War, drawing on Keith Jeffery's official history of the organisation. Intelligence history matters, not because of the romantic glamour of espionage, but because of the place secret organisations occupy in the social and political history of the twentieth century. Britain's secret state did not emerge fully formed. It was improvised, contested, and shaped by the crises of global war – and by the personal tragedy of the man who built it. In this episode, we examine the earliest years of the Secret Intelligence Service under Commander Mansfield Cumming – the original "C" of spy fiction fame. When the First World War broke out, the Secret Service was a fledgling organisation, born in a period of anti-German hysteria and fears about spies and infiltration. It had no clear place in the hierarchy of Whitehall. Cumming spent the first months of the war navigating between the War Office, the Admiralty and the Foreign Office – briefing each in turn, seeking approval for spending, and defending his institutional autonomy against successive military attempts to absorb his service. We trace the chaotic, fluid movements of personnel in the opening months of the war, as the pressures of total war moved men around "like counters." We also examine Cumming's own tragedy – a motor accident in France that killed his only son and cost him part of a leg. The story grew, as stories do, into legend: Compton Mackenzie's embellished account of Cumming hacking off his own foot with a penknife to free himself. The reality was more prosaic – but the consequences were not. Cumming's incapacity brought the Secret Service more closely under War Office control and prompted GHQ in France to establish its own independent intelligence service. **Topics covered:** - The origins of MI6 and the Secret Intelligence Service - Mansfield Cumming, the first "C" - The interdepartmental battle for control of intelligence - The War Office, Admiralty and Foreign Office - The chaos and flux of wartime Whitehall - Cumming's motor accident and the death of his son - The growth of the secret state in wartime - The mythology of intelligence work --- *Keith Jeffery's official history of MI6 is available from all good bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer.* *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we examine the recent electoral victory of the Alternative for Germany (AFD) in the state of Saxony-Anhalt – and what it tells us about the global resurgence of the far right. The AFD's crushing victory has alarmed commentators around the world. An openly fascist party emerging in Germany has a special and terrifying significance. But as veteran left intellectual Tariq Ali argues in a powerful Substack essay, this is not an isolated phenomenon. It is part of a global trend – and it is a direct consequence of the failures of neoliberalism and the "extreme centre." Ali writes that the election results "are not a huge surprise." The so-called firewall created by the extreme centre parties of the German elite has only aided the AFD's growth. The Christian Democratic Union, which won 37% in 2021, is now down to 18.5%. Meanwhile, Die Linke has won more votes than the Social Democratic Party, and the Sahra Wagenknecht Party has crossed the 5% threshold. The problem, Ali argues, is that the political and economic elites insist "that no reforms are possible and the current form of capitalism is fixed indefinitely." Telling people that an economic system that erodes their living standards year after year is the only option has created a vacuum that the far right is only too happy to fill. We also explore the historical context: the incomplete reckoning with Europe's fascist past, the failure of post-war denazification, and the erosion of the social democratic contract that once made Germany and other European countries resistant to extremism. Topics covered: The AFD's victory in Saxony-Anhalt Tariq Ali's analysis of the rise of the far right The failure of the "extreme centre" Neoliberalism and the erosion of living standards The collapse of the post-war social democratic contract Europe's incomplete reckoning with fascism The global nature of far-right resurgence If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

# Episode Description In this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we tackle one of the most persistent problems in how we teach and understand the civil rights movement: the "happy ever after" narrative. For many years, students have been taught that the struggles of the 1950s and 60s culminated in victory – that the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act somehow "solved" racism in America. This is, of course, nonsense. History doesn't work like that. The civil rights movement achieved significant gains, but the idea that racism was somehow "sorted" in 1968 is deeply misleading. Drawing on Kevin Verney's excellent book *The Debate on Black Civil Rights in America*, we explore the historiographical challenges of writing about the post-1968 period. Historians are naturally cautious about passing judgment on recent decades, which means the story of African American life since 1980 is often reduced to a few paragraphs about the emergence of a black middle class – and, bizarrely, a section on performers like Michael Jackson and Will Smith. We examine the debate around Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns, the argument over whether race or class is the primary division in American society, and the continuing crisis of inner-city poverty and police violence that the "happy ever after" narrative conveniently ignores. Topics covered: - The "happy ever after" problem in civil rights historiography - The challenge of writing about recent history - Jesse Jackson and the debate over black political leadership - Race vs. class in post-civil rights America - William Julius Wilson and the "declining significance of race" - Inner-city poverty and institutionalised racism - The limitations of liberal reform --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we continue our exploration of Eugene Rogan's masterful The Fall of the Ottomans, examining the fall of Baghdad to British forces in March 1917 – a victory that transformed Britain's position in the Middle East and revealed the imperial ambitions that would shape the post-war world. The British capture of Baghdad was far from inevitable. The catastrophic surrender at Kut in April 1916 had left the War Cabinet deeply risk-averse. General Robertson, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, feared that occupying Baghdad would leave British forces isolated and vulnerable to a resurgent Ottoman army. He warned against being "compelled later to fall back for any reason because of the objectionable political effect that such a retirement might produce." But pressure came from multiple directions. The Commander-in-Chief in India argued that seizing Baghdad would "greatly increase prestige in the Islamic East" – a crucial consideration given British fears of Muslim insurrection in India. And the Russians were proposing a spring offensive that might see them reach Baghdad first, which would "nullify the Sykes-Picot agreement." Oil, too, was already a factor – Mosul was understood to be the most reliable source of oil in the region. General Maud, whose superstition led him to launch his offensive on the 13th of December with the 13th Division in the vanguard, pushed forward despite London's caution. The Ottomans, recognising that Baghdad could not be defended, evacuated the city. As they withdrew, they destroyed military installations – wireless masts, cranes, water tanks, and the pontoon bridge across the Tigris. Looting erupted, and the American consul, Oscar Heiser, rode out to find the British advance guard. Maud's proclamation – drafted by Sir Mark Sykes, co-author of the Sykes-Picot Agreement – declared that the British came "not as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." But the people of Baghdad were not convinced. As one Iraqi schoolboy recalled, "the people of Baghdad and of Iraq as a whole saw with their own eyes how the English treated the Iraqis as slaves or captives." Topics covered: The British War Cabinet's caution after Kut The Russian threat and the Sykes-Picot Agreement The strategic importance of oil General Maud's superstitious command The Ottoman evacuation of Baghdad The destruction of Ottoman infrastructure Looting and the restoration of order Maud's proclamation and Iraqi scepticism Britain's imperial ambitions in the Middle East Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans is available from all good bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Fall of Baghdad In this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we continue our exploration of Eugene Rogan's masterful The Fall of the Ottomans, examining the British campaign to capture Baghdad in 1917 – a victory that helped redeem the catastrophic humiliation of Kut. The surrender at Kut in April 1916 had been one of the worst disasters in British military history. Thousands of British and Indian soldiers, starved into submission, were marched into captivity and then worked to death building Ottoman railways. The British government was deeply wary of any further advances in Mesopotamia. But the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force, smarting from the stigma of defeat, was determined to score a victory. Drawing on Rogan's narrative, we trace the campaign from the cautious advance on the Tigris to the fall of Baghdad. General Maud, a commander who had been wounded in France and was the last man off the beach at Gallipoli, was determined to break the Ottoman defences. Despite orders from London that barred an advance on the city, Maud pushed forward – driven in part by a superstitious belief that 13 was his lucky number. The Ottoman Sixth Army, worn down by illness, desertion, and casualties, was desperately understrength. Halil Pasha had been forced to redeploy forces to confront a Russian threat on the Persian frontier, leaving Baghdad dangerously exposed. When the British finally broke through at the Shumran Bend, the Ottoman retreat became a rout – pursued by British gunboats that wreaked havoc on exhausted and demoralised Turkish soldiers. The recapture of Kut was a symbolic victory. But the fall of Baghdad, which followed shortly after, was the first major British victory in the Middle East – a triumph that had eluded them since the beginning of the war. Topics covered: The disaster at Kut and its aftermath General Maud's command and his superstitious beliefs The Russian threat on the Persian frontier The battle for Kut (December 1916 – February 1917) The breakthrough at Shumran Bend The Ottoman retreat and the naval pursuit The symbolic recapture of Kut British fears of Muslim insurrection in India Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans is available from all good bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore the transformation of British society since Brexit – a story of the weaponisation of immigration, the erosion of the NHS, and the narrowing of who counts as "British." Drawing on Liam Stanley's excellent book, Britain Alone, we examine how the anxieties that gave rise to the 2016 referendum have been magnified and entrenched in the years since. The referendum did not create the forces that produced it – it gave them permission to speak openly. Racist discourse, once hinted at, is now shouted. Social media has amplified far-right invective. And political parties – first UKIP, then the Brexit Party, then Reform – have seized upon anti-immigrant sentiment as their primary political offering. We explore the devastating human consequences of the "hostile environment" – the set of policies introduced by Theresa May as Home Secretary to make the lives of migrants "miserable, costly and precarious." The Windrush scandal, in which thousands of people who had legally lived in the UK for decades were detained, deported, or stripped of their rights, is the most extreme example. Sylvester Marshall, who moved to the UK from Jamaica in 1973, was denied cancer treatment because he could not prove his immigration status – despite having lived and worked in Britain for 44 years. The episode also examines the "nationalisation" of the NHS – not in terms of state ownership, but in terms of making the state more national in its regulation and distribution of resources. Eligibility for healthcare, housing, and other essentials of life has become based around nationality – and as defined by Britain's right, based around whiteness. The logic of these changes cannot be reduced to austerity alone; they are a political project of exclusion. Topics covered: Brexit and the mainstreaming of racist discourse The Windrush scandal and the hostile environment The "nationalisation" of the NHS The politics of austerity and punishment Post-imperial Britishness and the racialisation of immigration The bipartisan embrace of anti-immigrant policies If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore one of the most significant transformations of 19th-century Russia: the introduction of universal military service in 1874. The Crimean War had exposed the profound weaknesses of the Russian Empire. Its army, composed largely of serfs serving 25-year terms, was backward, poorly equipped, and utterly demoralised. The British and French had demonstrated the power of industrialised warfare – railroads, telegraphs, modern rifles – and Russia had been humiliated. War Minister D. A. Milyutin, a reformer shaped by the shock of defeat, understood that the army could not be modernised without modernising the society that sustained it. The emancipation of the serfs in 1861 was the first step. Universal military service in 1874 was the next. It was an act simultaneously of military and social policy – designed not only to create a larger, more effective fighting force, but to elevate educational standards, foster civic cohesion, and transform the army from an object of social contempt into a symbol of national unity. Milyutin's reforms were inspired by the successes of the Prussian army against Austria in 1866 and France in 1870. But Russia was not Prussia. The challenge was to create a system that could mobilise the empire's vast population while navigating the complex ethnic and social divisions of the Tsarist state. We explore the mechanics of the reform: the reduction of active service terms, the expansion of the reserve pool, the linking of education to service length, and the creation of a more equitable system of conscription. We also examine the paradox at the heart of Alexander II's reforms – the desire to modernise and liberalise without surrendering autocratic power – and the tensions that would eventually lead to revolution. Topics covered: The Crimean War and its impact on Russia D. A. Milyutin and the reform agenda Universal military service (1874) The Franco-Prussian War as a catalyst The abolition of serfdom and its military implications Education, literacy, and the army Mobilisation and the reserve system Alexander II's reformist paradox Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hegseth's War – The Catastrophic Consequences of Maximum Lethality In this week's solo episode, I examine a ProPublica investigation into Pete Hegseth's tenure as US Defence Secretary – and the catastrophic consequences of his "maximum lethality" doctrine. Here, I want to expand on some of the key themes we discussed. The Civilian Protection Programme The story begins with a programme called Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR). It was a relatively new initiative, adopted after years of heavy civilian tolls in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Its mission was to station personnel within major regional commands to develop a picture of life on the ground in combat zones, aiding decision-making on military strikes and helping to avoid or minimise civilian harm. Shortly after taking office, Hegseth polled the nation's top commanders about cutting the programme. He expected them to endorse his view that civilian security was "woke" and out of step with "maximum lethality." Instead, every commander rebuffed him. Nine chose to preserve the programme; two asked to expand it. Hegseth ignored them. He gutted the programme, cutting staff from nearly 200 to around two dozen, and reducing Central Command's team from 16 to one. The Consequences The results were predictable. In Yemen, an air campaign killed 153 civilians and wounded 243 others. In Iran, a US strike on a school killed more than 100 children. Democratic senators and humanitarian groups questioned whether the cuts had contributed to the school tragedy. In a letter to Hegseth, 11 senators said the strike reflected the administration's "broader disregard for the strategic, legal and moral imperatives to minimise civilian harm." But this is not a regime that cares about international law. As I argue in the episode, the extreme right believes that international law has held the US back for years – that it has been fighting with one hand behind its back. The breaking of international law is not a regrettable byproduct of their policies; it is the mission. The "War Department" In a speech last year, Hegseth announced that the "Department of Defense is over" and that the "Department of War" had been restored. He spoke of "peace through strength" and "the warrior ethos." He told his enemies they would be "crushed by violence, precision and the ferocity of the war department." In other words: FAFO. But the reality is very different. The US military is under-resourced and overstretched in the Persian Gulf. It has lost its supply bases. It is facing critical shortages of everything from ammunition to toothpaste. The "maximum lethality" doctrine has produced exactly the opposite of what it promised. Hegseth's Psychology As I discussed in my earlier conversation with Jasper Craven, Hegseth is a deeply damaged individual – a product of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and of the far-right culture war that has consumed the Republican Party. He is living out a violent adolescent fantasy, speaking in the language of Christian fascism and the annihilation of the enemy. But he is also a symptom of a larger problem. Trump surrounds himself with incompetent ideologues because he does not want specialists and experts. He wants people who will tell him what he wants to hear, who will create chaos and distraction while he carries on looting the state. Hegseth is the perfect product of that system. If you'd like to support this work, please consider joining us on Substack. We are migrating from Patreon – details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by James Loeffler, the Felix Posen Professor of Modern Jewish History at Johns Hopkins University, to discuss his new book, An Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight Over Free Speech in Modern America. The book traces a century of struggle over antisemitism and free speech in the United States, from the violent anti-Jewish riots of the 1940s to the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville in 2017, and the ferocious campus debates over Israel-Palestine today. Loeffler argues that antisemitism has always been a uniquely contested category in American life – weaponised by both the right and the left, and often used to obscure rather than clarify the fight against hate. We explore the surprising rise of antisemitic attitudes in America after World War II and the Holocaust, the complex relationship between anti-communism and antisemitism in the 1950s, and the long history of Jews being viewed as "not quite white" – a racial ambiguity that has made them a persistent target of conspiracy theories. The conversation also examines the politicisation of antisemitism. Today, conservatives often use the accusation of antisemitism as a weapon against the left, while some on the left dismiss legitimate concerns about antisemitism as a smokescreen for defending Israel. Loeffler argues that this instrumentalisation of hatred does a disservice to the victims of real antisemitism and creates a toxic environment where genuine debate is impossible. Topics covered: The 2017 Charlottesville rally and its significance The history of antisemitic violence in post-WWII America The "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy theory Jews, whiteness, and racial ambiguity The politicisation of antisemitism Free speech, hate speech, and the campus debates The Israel-Palestine conflict and its impact on American Jews James Loeffler's An Exceptional Hatred is available from all good bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer or directly from the publisher. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore the life and legacy of Harold Wilson – the most successful Labour Prime Minister of the 20th century, and the man who attracted the most fevered paranoia from the British right. Wilson is often misunderstood. To the right, he was a crypto-communist, a threat to the British way of life. To some on the left, he was a betrayer of socialist ideals. The truth is more complex: Wilson was a corporatist, a believer in a managed mixed economy where private enterprise would be guided, not bullied, by the state. He wanted to break the power of the City of London, modernise British industry, and create a "producers' alliance" between manufacturing, unions, and government. This vision – modest by any standard – was met with extraordinary hostility. In the 1960s and 70s, MI5 agents plotted against him, bugged his offices, and discussed military coups. Senior civil servants sabotaged his government's plans. Newspaper barons waged campaigns of character assassination. Wilson was never a socialist, let alone a communist – but he threatened the interests of a ruling class that would not tolerate even mild reform. I draw a parallel with the current moment. The language of the British right – from the Conservative Party to Reform to various crypto-fascist fringe groups – routinely equates the basics of post-war social democracy with communism. The idea that workers should have rights, that there should be a social safety net, that there should be a public health service – these are now described as "communist ideas." This is not a new phenomenon. It is a continuation of the same paranoid tradition that sought to destroy Wilson. We also examine Wilson's attempt to create a Department of Economic Affairs to break Treasury dominance – a battle he lost, and which has echoes in Andy Burnham's current efforts to decentralise economic decision-making. The Treasury won then, and it is winning now. Topics covered: Harold Wilson as corporatist The post-war social democratic consensus MI5 plots against Wilson The cult of the "gentleman amateur" Wilson's "white heat of technology" speech The Department of Economic Affairs and Treasury sabotage The paranoia of the British right Parallels with the current moment If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, I examine the extraordinary diplomatic demands the United States has placed on Canada – demands that echo the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia in July 1914 and raise profound questions about American intentions. The Trump administration's trade demands on Canada are not mere negotiations. They include provisions that would restrict Canada's ability to make trade agreements with other countries, effectively preventing it from diversifying its economy beyond the United States. They target the Canadian automotive industry, Quebec's French language and cultural rights, critical minerals, and agricultural markets. Taken together, they amount to a demand for the end of Canadian sovereignty – the ceding of economic, foreign, and domestic policy to Washington. I draw a historical parallel with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia in 1914. The Habsburgs presented demands designed to be unacceptable – including the right to send their own police into Serbian territory to conduct investigations. The Serbs accepted most demands but rejected the diminution of their sovereignty. War followed, and with it, the cataclysm of the First World War. Is America seeking a rejection? Or is this simply the chaotic flailing of a desperate regime? I explore the incoherence of Trump's policy – the simultaneous attempts to lay economic siege to Iran, to pressure China, and to bully Canada. This is not strategy; it is the kind of random, improvisational aggression that emerges from a dysfunctional administration where access to the president determines policy, and where policy changes with the weather. The comparison to the Nazi regime's chaotic decision-making – the "working towards the Führer" model – is not about equating Trump with Hitler, but about understanding how autocratic systems generate incoherence. When the leader is inattentive, lazy, and surrounded by competing factions, policy becomes a function of who has access and what they think they heard. The result is the rapid erosion of American credibility and power. Canada will not accept these demands. And the damage to America's standing in the world – already immense – will take generations to repair. Topics covered: The Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia (1914) Trump's trade demands on Canada Restrictions on Canadian sovereignty The Canadian automotive industry Quebec's French language and cultural rights Critical minerals and the tech industry The incoherence of American foreign policy The "working towards the Führer" model The erosion of American credibility If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by David F. Walbert, a veteran voting rights attorney whose new book, Stealing Elections American Style, traces the long, sordid history of contested and corrupted elections from the mid‑19th century to the present day. David's career spans decades of litigation on voting rights cases, beginning in the early 1970s when he moved to Georgia and discovered that despite the Voting Rights Act, African American representation in elected office was staggeringly low. The problem was not voter registration – Black and white registration was near parity – but structural devices that allowed white majorities to control every election outcome. We explore the origins of the "Southern strategy" – the explicit deal struck by Richard Nixon in 1968 with the white South: electoral votes in exchange for Supreme Court justices hostile to civil rights. That strategy, David argues, is the genesis of the ongoing assault on voting rights, culminating in the 1980 Supreme Court decision that nearly shut down vote dilution cases – and the subsequent effort to amend the Voting Rights Act in 1982. The conversation moves to the stolen election of 1876 – perhaps the most flagrant in American history – where Rutherford B. Hayes was awarded the presidency despite losing the popular vote, through the systematic throwing out of Democratic precincts in Louisiana. The parallels to the present are striking. David also discusses the evolution of voter suppression tactics, the spread of white racist ideology from the South to the North, and the alarming infiltration of election denialists into state and local election apparatuses. He warns that the next close election – particularly in the House and Senate – could be decided not by voters, but by partisan politicians in Congress, a prospect that threatens the very foundation of American democracy. Topics covered: David's career litigating voting rights cases The Voting Rights Act and its amendments The Southern strategy and its consequences The stolen election of 1876 (Tilden vs. Hayes) George W. Bush vs. Al Gore in 2000 Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election The infiltration of election denialists into state and local offices The constitutional power of Congress to judge its own elections The threat to the 2028 presidential election David F. Walbert's Stealing Elections American Style is published by Bloomsbury and is available from September 3 in the US and October in the UK. Please consider buying from an independent bookshop or directly from the publisher. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we step back from the specific history of Congo to examine the broader theoretical framework of neocolonialism – and how the decline of formal empire prepared the ground for the neoliberal revolution. Drawing on thinkers from Marx and Lenin to J.A. Hobson and Rosa Luxemburg, we explore the purpose of empire from the perspective of capital: the pursuit of cheap resources, cheap labour, and captive markets. Britain's transformation from a middling European kingdom to a global superpower was built on the extraction of wealth from its colonies – from the opium trade with China to the slave‑based sugar and cotton economies to the systematic deindustrialisation of India. But what happens when empire becomes unsustainable? In India, the British lost control of the Indian Army in 1946, and with it, their ability to monopolise armed force. By the 1950s and 60s, most of Britain's African colonies were gone. Yet the flow of wealth from the Global South to the City of London did not stop. It continued through neocolonialism – debt, the Bretton Woods institutions, corporate infiltration, and support for pliant regimes. And then came neoliberalism. As the returns from empire declined, capitalist elites in the Global North turned inward, cannibalising their own societies through privatisation, the erosion of welfare states, and the breaking of organised labour. The neoliberal revolution was, in part, a response to the crisis of empire – a way to maintain elite wealth and power when the old imperial structures could no longer deliver. We also consider the explicitly colonial and eugenic thinking of some neoliberal architects, and the destructive consequences of imposing market logic on societies with no history of it. From the mass unemployment of Thatcher's Britain to the ongoing exploitation of Africa, the arc of capital bends towards extraction – and the people always pay the price. Topics covered: Marxist and liberal theories of imperialism (Hobson, Lenin, Luxemburg) Britain's transition from formal empire to neocolonialism The loss of control over the Indian Army in 1946 The Bretton Woods institutions and the weaponisation of debt Neoliberalism as a response to the decline of empire The cannibalisation of Western welfare states The role of organised labour and the defeat of the miners The eugenic and colonial thinking of neoliberal theorists If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we begin a journey into one of the darkest and most overlooked chapters of the 20th century: the establishment of neocolonialism in Africa after the formal end of European empires. After the Second World War, the dreams of a genuinely independent Africa – of nations free from exploitation, able to chart their own futures – were mercilessly snuffed out by Western powers. Drawing on Susan Williams's brilliant White Malice: The CIA and the Neocolonialisation of Africa, we explore the relationship between Ghana and Congo, and the forces that destroyed the hopes of the independence era. We begin with the brutal history of King Leopold II's Congo Free State – a territory nearly 80 times the size of Belgium, where an estimated 10 million Congolese people died as a consequence of forced labour, mutilation, and murder. The purpose of Belgian rule, as Kwame Nkrumah observed, was not to suppress slavery but to change its nature, to make it more profitable. But the exploitation did not end with formal decolonisation. The Congo's Shinkolobwe mine produced uranium of unparalleled richness – up to 75% uranium oxide, compared to ores from America that contained just 0.2%. This uranium was essential to the Manhattan Project, powering the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the war, the resource extraction continued, but through new means: corporate infiltration, debt, coups, and the tools of the Bretton Woods system. We trace the origins of American intelligence operations in Africa, from the OSS bases in Accra, Cape Town, and Addis Ababa, to the top-secret mission to protect Congolese uranium from falling into enemy hands. And we consider the broader tragedy of neocolonialism – how the West used every tool at its disposal to ensure that Africa's resources remained under its control, long after the flags of empire had been lowered. Topics covered: The Belgian Congo and the crimes of King Leopold II The forced labour system and the rubber trade The Shinkolobwe uranium mine The Manhattan Project and the atomic bomb The OSS and early US intelligence in Africa Kwame Nkrumah and Pan-Africanism The tools of neocolonialism: debt, coups, and corporate power The continuing relevance of resource exploitation today Susan Williams's White Malice is available from all good bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by John McDonagh, professor of practice at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, former Massachusetts state legislator, and key architect of Obamacare. He is here to discuss his new book, America's Wrong Turn: U.S. Healthcare in the Neoliberal Era – a searing diagnosis of how a revolution in economic thinking turned the American healthcare system into a global outlier. The United States spends more on healthcare than any other advanced nation – by a staggering margin – yet its health outcomes rank near the bottom. Life expectancy has been declining since 1980. The infant mortality rate is embarrassingly high. And while every other wealthy country covers 99–100% of its citizens, the U.S. still leaves millions uninsured. John explains how a single chart – showing U.S. healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP – reveals the story. In 1980, the U.S. was the highest spender but still in the pack. Then something happened. Around 1982–83, the U.S. "jackrabbited" away from every other nation. The culprit? The neoliberal revolution – the ideas of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and the Mont Pelerin Society – that captured American policy under Ronald Reagan and transformed healthcare from a public good into a site of value extraction. John traces how monopoly capitalism, private equity, and the mantra of "maximising shareholder value" have hollowed out the system. Hospitals are bought by private equity firms, stripped of their land and buildings, and turned into tenants paying exorbitant rents. Two companies now control 90% of dialysis care. Antitrust enforcement has collapsed. The result is a system that Americans hate – but feel powerless to change. Yet John is an optimist. He argues that the feedback loop of public revulsion is building, and that the neoliberal era – though its effects persist – is over. The seeds of hope lie in renewed antitrust activism, grassroots organising, and the eventual replacement of a corrupt administration. Topics covered: U.S. healthcare spending vs. outcomes The 1980s inflection point The neoliberal revolution and its key thinkers Monopoly capitalism in healthcare Private equity and value extraction The collapse of antitrust enforcement Milton Friedman's "shareholder value" doctrine The NHS and the politics of healthcare Hope for reform John McDonagh's America's Wrong Turn is published by Johns Hopkins University Press. Use code HTWN at checkout for 30% off. Please consider buying from an independent retailer or directly from the publisher. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore a little‑known chapter of American history: the establishment of California's penal system as a form of coerced labour that replaced chattel slavery. When we think of slavery in America, we think of the southern states. But California has a far more complex and underexplored history. In 1849, the year after gold was discovered, California was a lawless frontier. There were no courts, no jails, no police. Vigilantes and self‑appointed "tribunals" dispensed "justice" with fists, guns and ropes. White paramilitary groups like the Hounds terrorised Latino and Black communities, robbing, raping and mutilating with impunity. As California moved towards statehood in 1850, it needed to establish order. But the state had no money to build prisons. The solution was to put prisoners to work – and to make them pay for their own incarceration. From the 1850s onwards, legions of shackled prisoners built roads, broke granite, laid pipes and even built San Quentin prison itself. Convict labour was leased to private businesses, creating a system of penal slavery that would endure for generations. Drawing on Jean Felser's California, a Slave State, we trace the origins of this system. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery – but with a crucial exception: "except as a punishment for crime". That exception allowed California to build an economic colossus on the backs of unpaid prisoners, disproportionately Native American, Black, immigrant and poor. And the system never went away. Topics covered: California's lawless gold rush era The Hounds and vigilante justice The 1850 Act for the Government and Protection of Indians The establishment of San Quentin prison Convict leasing and penal slavery The 13th Amendment's "punishment for crime" exception The racialisation of crime and punishment The prison‑industrial complex in historical perspective If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The International Brigades and the Fight for Spain **In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by Tony Fox, organiser of the Northeast Volunteers for Liberty and the International Brigades Memorial Organisation, to discuss the newly published collection, *Remember Me to My Comrades: Letters from Spain to Britain*.** The book emerged from a remarkable collaboration with the families of volunteers from the North East of England – one of the industrial heartlands hit hardest by the Great Depression. Through letters, diaries, and previously unpublished documents from the Russian archives, it brings to life the voices of men who went to Spain to fight fascism. Tony explains how the International Brigades were formed in response to the Non-Intervention Treaty signed by Britain, France and other powers. While Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy poured troops and weapons into Franco's Nationalist forces, the Soviet Union organised volunteers through the Comintern. In Britain, the Communist Party – not the Labour Party, which supported non-intervention – recruited and vetted two-and-a-half thousand men. We discuss the diverse motivations of the volunteers: from committed communists who had already fought Oswald Mosley's fascists on the streets of Britain, to idealists who saw Spain as the front line of a wider war against fascism. We explore the unique political character of the International Brigades – an army of working-class activists who knew why they were fighting, and whose morale was sustained through political education, including an essay competition held in the middle of the war. Tony also shares the story of Sam Wild, the last and finest commander of the British Battalion, and the chaotic, heroic rear‑guard actions that defined the British experience – from the defence of Madrid to the bloody retreats across the Ebro. **Topics covered:** - The Non-Intervention Treaty and its consequences - The formation of the International Brigades - The role of the Communist Party in recruitment - The social and political character of the volunteers - The Battle of Jarama and the defence of Madrid - Sam Wild and the British Battalion - Letters from the Russian archives - The human cost of the Spanish Civil War --- *Tony Fox's *Remember Me to My Comrades* is available from Barnfather Publishing and independent bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer or directly from the publisher.* *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore the complex dynamics of the Mesopotamian campaign during the First World War – where subject peoples, caught between the collapsing Ottoman Empire and the advancing British, navigated their loyalties with survival in mind.** Drawing on Eugene Rogan's masterful *The Fall of the Ottomans*, we examine the Arab rebellions that erupted in the Middle Euphrates region in 1915. The Ottomans, desperate to hold their empire together, attempted to enforce conscription among their Arab subjects – many of whom had no desire to die in a war they had not chosen. When Ottoman authorities clamped down on deserters, the shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala exploded in rebellion. The rebellion was not nationalist in the modern sense. The rebels did not seek independence; they sought autonomy from a distant Ottoman state that was extracting their young men and disrupting their lives. In Najaf, deserters holed up in the shrine city. When Ottoman soldiers violated local customs by searching under women's veils, the townspeople turned against them. The rebellion spread to Karbala, Al-Hilla, Samawah, and other towns, with rebels burning government buildings, destroying records, and driving Ottoman soldiers out. As the British advanced up the Tigris and Euphrates, local populations made pragmatic choices. Arab villages flew white flags to welcome the new conquerors. The Ottomans, meanwhile, faced a collapse of morale that led to mass surrenders – including at the town of Amara, where a single British steamer with a crew of eight sailors accepted the surrender of hundreds of Ottoman troops. We also explore the divided loyalties of figures like Ali Djaoudat, an Iraqi Arab officer who had served the Ottomans loyally but secretly sympathised with the Arab autonomy movement. His capture by British forces – after being ambushed by Bedouin tribesmen who had turned against the Ottomans – illustrates the complexity of the situation. **Topics covered:** - Eugene Rogan's *The Fall of the Ottomans* - Ottoman conscription and desertion in Mesopotamia - The Najaf rebellion of May 1915 - The Karbala uprising and its spread - The collapse of Ottoman morale - The British advance and "Townsend's Regatta" - The surrender at Amara - The divided loyalties of Arab officers - Robert Fisk's "Lord Blair of Kut" comment - The experience of colonised peoples between two empires --- *Eugene Rogan's *The Fall of the Ottomans* is available from all good bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer.* *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

False Dawn – Russia's Two Utopian Experiments and the Legacy of Shock Therapy https://explaininghistory.org/historiography/russian-revolution/ In this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore John Gray's False Dawn and the remarkable parallels between two failed attempts to remake Russia on a Western model – Bolshevism and the "shock therapy" of the post‑Soviet 1990s. After the First World War, John Maynard Keynes warned that the Carthaginian peace imposed on Germany would lead to endless instability. The Treaty of Versailles was a missed opportunity – and so, in a different way, was the settlement that followed the Cold War. Instead of a new international order that might have integrated Russia into the world system, we got free‑market triumphalism and the chaotic dismemberment of the Soviet Union. John Gray's argument is provocative: both War Communism (1918‑21) and the shock therapy of the Yeltsin era were Western utopian projects, divorced from Russian history and culture, that produced catastrophic human suffering. War Communism, with its abolition of private property and markets, was an attempt to impose Marxian socialism on a country that had no industrial base to sustain it. Shock therapy, with its sudden price liberalisation and mass privatisation, was an attempt to impose an American‑style free market on a country that had no institutions to support it. The results were devastating. In the 1990s, Russia experienced collapsing life expectancy, spiralling inflation that wiped out life savings, the rise of gangster capitalism, and the emergence of an oligarchic class that would eventually centralise power under Vladimir Putin. Yet unlike the horrors of Stalinism, this second catastrophe has received relatively little attention in Western historiography. Gray also draws a broader lesson: the global free market is itself a utopia, hostile to tradition, culture, and human needs. Like Soviet communism, it demands the sacrifice of those who get in its way – and its shock troops, from the IMF to the editorial pages of major newspapers, share the same contempt for history as the Bolsheviks. **Topics covered:** - Keynes and Clemenceau on the Treaty of Versailles - The missed opportunity of the post‑Cold War settlement - John Gray's *False Dawn* - War Communism and its consequences - Shock therapy and the collapse of 1990s Russia - The parallels between Soviet and neoliberal utopianism - The human cost of economic experimentation - Russia's "indigenous capitalism" and the rise of Putin - The arrogance of Western state‑building in Iraq and Afghanistan --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we dive into Richard Overy's magnificent *Blood and Ruins* – a history that reframes the Second World War not simply as a struggle between democracy and fascism, but as the bloody climax of a centuries‑long competition between rival imperial powers.** Drawing on Leonard Woolf's 1928 warning that imperialism would either be "buried peacefully or in blood and ruins", Overy traces the roots of global conflict to the late 19th century, when newly modernising nations – Germany, Italy, Japan – sought to prove their greatness by acquiring colonies. Empire was not just an economic necessity; it was a matter of national honour, a way of asserting membership among the world's great powers. We explore the ideology that sustained this wave of imperialism: a toxic blend of Social Darwinism, racial hierarchy, and the belief that "superior" nations were destined to dominate "inferior" ones. These ideas – Lebensraum, the civilising mission, the survival of the fittest – were not Nazi inventions. They were mainstream in Britain, France, Germany and the United States long before Hitler came to power. Overy also challenges us to confront a difficult truth: the genocidal violence of the Second World War was not unprecedented. The horrors inflicted on colonised peoples in the Congo, German South‑West Africa, and elsewhere were brought back to Europe and visited upon Europeans themselves. The Holocaust was a genocide among many – and the selective outrage that followed reveals the deep hypocrisy at the heart of the imperial project. Finally, we consider the longer sweep of history. Europe's domination of the globe was an anomaly – a brief, violent interlude in a 5,000‑year history in which the centres of civilisation lay in the Middle East, India and China. As American power wanes and the world's centre of gravity shifts eastwards, we may be witnessing the bloody, uncertain end of the European imperial era that began in 1492. **Topics covered:** - Richard Overy's "Great Imperial War" thesis - Leonard Woolf and the question of imperialism's end - The new imperialism of the late 19th century - Germany, Italy, Japan and the scramble for empire - Social Darwinism, racial ideology and the civilising mission - The return of colonial violence to Europe - The Holocaust in the context of imperial genocide - European imperialism's 500‑year anomaly - The shifting centre of gravity to Asia --- *Richard Overy's *Blood and Ruins* is available from all good bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer.* *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, I explore the striking parallels between the British Labour Party's war on Jeremy Corbyn and the Democrat establishment's growing fear of Zohran Mamdani – a new kind of left politics that refuses to be bullied. We begin with the uncomfortable truth that much of what passes for "liberalism" in American politics – and "moderation" in British politics – is a defence of wealthy interests dressed up in progressive language. The Democrats and the post-Thatcher Labour Party share a common DNA: they believe in markets, they court Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and they have systematically abandoned any meaningful commitment to redistributing wealth and power. Then we turn to the Corbyn story – an object lesson for the American left. Between 2015 and 2020, a genuinely anti-austerity movement swept through the Labour Party, only to be destroyed from within by a coordinated campaign of sabotage. The Labour right, funded by billionaire donors and organised through secretive groups like Labour Together, waged a rolling coup against their own leader – not because they disagreed with his policies, but because he threatened to actually implement them. Now we see similar dynamics unfolding in New York, where Zohran Mamdani has emerged as a powerful left voice. Mamdani is running on a platform of material issues – rent, childcare, transport – that directly address the crises ordinary people face. Unlike some on the centre-left, he has not thrown marginalised communities under the bus to win elections. He refuses to waver on Palestine. He has shown that a popular left platform is possible – and that is precisely why the establishment fears him. **Topics covered:** - The ideological collapse of the Democrats and Labour Party - Neoliberalism, austerity, and the abandonment of social democracy - The Corbyn years and the internal sabotage of the Labour left - The rise of Zohran Mamdani in New York - How the centre-left handles the left – the lessons of Corbyn - The fear that democratic socialism might actually work --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by award-winning French Canadian author Mireille Gagné to discuss her acclaimed novel, *Horsefly* – a powerful, genre-defying work inspired by a top‑secret biological warfare laboratory that operated on Québec's Grosse Île during the Second World War. The novel draws on a forgotten chapter of shared Allied history. In 1942, British, American, and Canadian forces established a clandestine facility on Grosse Île – an island in the St. Lawrence River that had previously served as a quarantine station for European immigrants. Their mission: to develop anthrax as a weapon of mass destruction, producing enough to kill the world's population thirty times over. The operation, known as Project M, was part of a broader effort that included the infamous Gruinard Island tests in Scotland – where anthrax spores rendered the island uninhabitable for decades. But Mireille's story is not primarily about scientists and generals. It is about the ordinary people – the residents of neighbouring islands, many of them French Canadian, who were recruited as labourers, caretakers, and assistants. They slaughtered cattle, handled organs, washed themselves with harsh red soap, and transported dangerous materials – often without understanding the full extent of the risks. They worked in silence, bound by military secrecy, and carried a heavy burden that they never fully spoke about. Mireille grew up on Île‑aux‑Grues, part of the same archipelago as Grosse Île. She heard fragments of these stories as a child – whispered, half‑remembered, dismissed by some as dementia. Her mother, who arrived on the island in the 1970s, tried to ask questions but was met with silence. It was only when Mireille began interviewing grandchildren that the stories began to emerge – piecemeal, tentative, shameful. The men who had worked there rarely spoke before they died; the families who survived did not want to revisit the past. *Horsefly* moves between the 1940s and the present day. In the contemporary timeline, a suffocating heatwave grips Québec, violence is on the rise, and a man caring for his grandfather with dementia must journey back to Grosse Île to understand the cryptic wartime past that is consuming him. The novel explores themes of memory, transhumanism, and the long shadow of war – a reminder that the "good guys" in the Second World War also pursued weapons of unimaginable destructiveness. **Topics covered:** - The top‑secret Grosse Île biological warfare laboratory (Project M) - Operation Vegetarian and the Gruinard Island anthrax tests - Britain's Porton Down and the Allied biological weapons programme - The role of Canadian scientists, including Frederick Banting - The recruitment of local French Canadian labourers - The silence and shame of those who worked there - Mireille's personal connection to the story - The novel's exploration of memory, trauma, and transhumanism - The contemporary relevance of biological weapons research --- *Mireille Gagné's Horsefly is published by New Cross Press and is available now. Please consider buying from an independent bookshop or directly from the publisher.* *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Northern Ireland, the Far-Right, and the Battle for Democracy with Heidi Birick In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined again by Heidi Birick of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism to discuss the recent far-right violence in Northern Ireland – and the global networks that fuelled it. In recent weeks, Northern Ireland was rocked by a series of violent attacks against migrant communities following an incident in which a Sudanese national attacked an NHS worker. The attack was not terrorist-related and had no connection to the wider migrant community. But the global far-right seized on the event, spreading misinformation across social media and calling for violence. The footage of the resulting attacks – houses burned, people terrified to leave their homes – had all the hallmarks of a pogrom. Heidi explains how far-right groups are tightly networked in the online space, sharing messaging across continents, coordinating through unmoderated chat channels like Telegram, and meeting in person at conferences to plan their strategy. Figures like Tommy Robinson and Elon Musk amplified the calls for violence – Musk, in particular, has been openly promoting white supremacist ideas, calling for "remigration", and threatening civil war in the UK. We discuss the alarming power of a trillionaire like Musk to ride roughshod over public order and civil society from anywhere in the world, and the inability of states – even powerful ones like the United Kingdom – to respond effectively. The erosion of content moderation on X (formerly Twitter) has created a safe haven for hate speech, and the US government's hostility to online regulation has made the problem worse. But there is hope. The far-right riots in Belfast were met with an enormous counter-protest the following day – the largest show of solidarity in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday Agreement. Heidi argues that the majority of people reject these ideas, and that movements for democracy and human rights remain powerful. She also reflects on the need for structural solutions – taxing billionaires, regulating media, and rebuilding state capacity to deliver for ordinary people. Topics covered: The far-right violence in Northern Ireland Tommy Robinson and Elon Musk's role in spreading disinformation The global network of far-right groups Elon Musk's influence on content moderation and hate speech The power of trillionaires to undermine democracy The ineffectiveness of state responses Counter-protests in Belfast and the rejection of fascism Comparisons with historical fascism The Henry VII principle and the need to tax oligarchs The generational battle against hate Heidi Birick is co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. Visit globalextremism.org for resources and to support their vital work. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Toscanini Conspiracy – Arturo Toscanini, Fascism, and the Italian Resistance with Filippo Iannarone In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by Italian author Filippo Iannarone to discuss his acclaimed crime novel, The Toscanini Conspiracy – a story that weaves together a real‑life cold case, the anti‑fascist resistance of conductor Arturo Toscanini, and the author's own family history of heroic opposition to Mussolini and Hitler. The novel began with a chance encounter. While travelling in Val d'Orcia, Filippo discovered a small inn called Locanda Toscanini and asked the host why it bore the name of the legendary conductor. The answer opened a door to a forgotten story: the murder of Dr. Rinaldi, a physician and friend of Toscanini, in 1935 – the same year Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. The case was never solved. But as Filippo dug through newspaper archives and court documents, he found that it exposed a hidden world of anti‑fascist activity in a small Tuscan village. That village became a gathering place for intellectuals, artists, and dissidents – including the explorer Umberto Nobile, fashion designer Salvatore Ferragamo, and Anita Garibaldi – all resisting the tightening grip of Mussolini's regime. At the centre of it all was Arturo Toscanini, the most famous conductor in the world, who had already been beaten by fascist thugs for refusing to play the regime's anthem. Later, he would reject a personal invitation from Adolf Hitler to conduct at Bayreuth – a decision that carried immense symbolic weight. But Filippo's story is also deeply personal. His uncle, Major General Michele Iannarone, was a hero of the Italian Resistance. A monarchist officer who served on the Eastern Front and developed contacts with German officers opposed to Hitler, he became one of the commanders of Rome's clandestine military resistance after the fall of Mussolini in July 1943. When Rome was occupied by the Nazis, his network of thousands of partisans coordinated with the Allies, saved Jewish families, and kept the German army occupied until the Americans arrived. We discuss the brutal civil war that raged in Italy from 1943 until well after the war's end, the forgotten role of monarchist partisans, the trauma of the "years of lead" in the 1970s, and the uncomfortable continuities between fascism and today's far‑right movements across Europe and America. Filippo also reflects on what Toscanini would make of our current moment – and why telling these stories matters more than ever. Topics covered: The real‑life cold case that inspired the novel Arturo Toscanini's anti‑fascist activism The 1935 Italian invasion of Ethiopia and its domestic consequences The alternative community of dissidents in Spiazza, Tuscany Major General Michele Iannarone and the monarchist partisans The military clandestine front in occupied Rome The Via Rasella bombing and the Ardeatine massacre Italy's post‑war civil war and the "years of lead" The erasure of monarchist partisans from official history Parallels between 1930s Italy and today's far‑right movements Filippo Iannarone's The Toscanini Conspiracy is available now in English. Please consider buying from an independent bookshop or directly from the publisher. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by investigative journalist Jasper Craven to discuss his new book, *God Forgives, Brothers Don’t: Inside the Violent, Hypermasculine World of America’s Military Schools*. The conversation ranges far beyond military academies to explore how the US military has become the defining institution of American manhood – and what that means for democracy, violence, and the soul of the nation.** Jasper’s journey into this subject began with a tip about a dysfunctional military school near Philadelphia, rife with abuse and corruption. That story opened a window onto a broad network of military education – from elite officer training at West Point to reform schools for troubled boys – all peddling the same promise: that rigid hierarchy, discipline, and violence can forge a real man. The military, Jasper argues, has filled a void left by the collapse of other pathways to meaning and middle‑class security. We trace the historical roots of America’s uneasy relationship with standing armies – the founders’ distrust of a professional military versus the lionisation of the revolutionary war veteran. That tension has been resolved decisively in favour of the soldier. Today, militarism permeates American culture, from a defence budget larger than the next ten countries combined to the reflexive adoration of anyone in uniform. This “secular faith” has produced a generation of veterans who feel their sacrifices are acknowledged only in hollow, abstract gestures – never in a genuine willingness to confront the ugliness of war. The conversation turns to Pete Hegseth, Trump’s defence secretary and a walking embodiment of hyper‑performative masculinity. Jasper traces Hegseth’s own insecurities – shame at his “soft” father, a desperate need to prove himself – and shows how the military offered him a ready‑made identity. But that identity is brittle, built on a foundation of alcohol abuse, misogyny, Islamophobia, and a deep fear of being seen as weak. Hegseth, Jasper argues, is not an aberration but the “inevitable conclusion” of decades of imperial blowback. We also discuss the role of military schools in channelling working‑class boys – disproportionately white, often struggling with learning disabilities or juvenile justice issues – into a system that promises redemption through submission. The long‑term consequences are devastating: high rates of suicide, PTSD, domestic violence, and extremist radicalisation. Jasper notes that the mob that stormed the Capitol on 6 January was composed largely of military veterans – a fact that was briefly discussed, then quietly forgotten. Topics covered: - Jasper’s investigative journey from a single dysfunctional military school to a national network - The economic and social drivers of military recruitment - How military schools weaponise masculinity as a recruiting tool - America’s historic tension between distrust of standing armies and adoration of soldiers - The failure of post‑9/11 wars to deliver meaning or victory - Pete Hegseth as a case study in fragile, performative masculinity - The 6 January insurrection and the role of radicalised veterans - The hollow abstraction of veteran worship - Graham Platner’s Senate campaign as a test of whether voters can face the real wounds of war --- *Jasper Craven’s *God Forgives, Brothers Don’t* is out now. Please consider buying from an independent bookshop or directly from the publisher.* *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we examine the opening moves of the Ottoman Empire’s war against Britain – a desperate, audacious campaign to seize the Suez Canal that has been largely forgotten but which revealed the fragility of the British Empire and the resilience of the Ottoman army. At the outbreak of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire saw itself surrounded by enemies: the British in Egypt, the Russians to the north, a hostile Habsburg Empire to the west, and a recently hostile Italy in the Mediterranean. The Young Turk government initially hoped to stay out of the war. But when they looked at Britain, France, and Russia, they saw voraciously hungry powers intent on dismembering their empire. Germany offered a security guarantee – unreliable, but the best available. The German High Command placed a high priority on cutting the Suez Canal. Between August and December 1914, 376 transport ships carried nearly 164,000 Allied troops through the canal. It was the vital artery connecting the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean – the lifeline of Britain’s Asian empire. If the Ottomans could pinch it off, they could deal Britain a mortal blow and perhaps inspire a pan‑Islamic jihad against British rule. The man chosen to lead the attack was Cemal Pasha. In November 1914, he stood in Istanbul’s central train station and publicly proclaimed his intention to conquer Egypt. The British dismissed his pledge as empty rhetoric. They did not believe he could raise an army large enough or cross the waterless, hostile Sinai desert. But Cemal assembled a heterogeneous, multi‑ethnic force – regular soldiers from the Arab provinces, volunteers from Bedouin, Druze, Circassian, Kurdish, Albanian, and even Jewish communities. He wrote to the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein ibn Ali, asking for troops under one of his sons. Hussein’s son Ali went no further than Medina – a warning sign Cemal chose to ignore. Against all odds, Cemal’s force marched across the Sinai in 12 days, losing neither a man nor a beast. They carried light rations of dates, biscuit, and olives, water carefully rationed, marching through the freezing nights and resting by day. British aerial surveillance initially failed to detect them – early aircraft lacked the range to reach central Sinai. By late January 1915, the British realised the impossible was happening. They withdrew all troops to the western shore of the canal, chained guard dogs on the east bank, and waited. The odds were stacked against the Ottomans – 25,000 attackers against 50,000 dug‑in defenders, backed by warships, armoured trains, and the canal itself. But Cemal had achieved surprise. What happened next would shape the course of the war in the Middle East. Drawing on Eugene Rogan’s *The Fall of the Ottomans*, this episode explores the political context of the Ottoman decision to enter the war, the challenges of mobilising a multi‑ethnic army, the incredible logistics of the Sinai crossing, and the early use of aerial reconnaissance in desert warfare. **Topics covered:** - The Ottoman Empire’s strategic dilemma in 1914 - The alliance with Germany and the promise of jihad - The importance of the Suez Canal to the British war effort - Cemal Pasha and his public proclamation - The composition of the Ottoman expeditionary force - Sharif Hussein’s reluctant cooperation - The 12‑day march across the Sinai - British aerial reconnaissance and its limitations - The defence of the canal: warships, armoured trains, and guard dogs - The moment of surprise before the attack --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

*The history that this podcast episode explores involves harm and neglect to children and some listeners may find the details disclosed distressing. In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by Paige Towers to discuss her new book, What They Stole – a deeply researched exploration of intercountry adoption from Korea to the United States, rooted in a family tragedy that shook her Iowa hometown. The book begins with a shocking event: in 2008, a local bank vice president murdered his wife and children before taking his own life. For Paige, this was a window into a much larger and darker history – the story of Korean intercountry adoption, which began in the aftermath of the Korean War and continued for decades with little oversight or accountability. We trace the origins of modern intercountry adoption to the mass displacement of children during and after World War II. In Italy, Greece, and Germany, orphans filled the streets, and American GIs and missionaries began taking children home – often through informal, unregulated channels. By the time the Korean War ended, a full‑blown adoption industry had emerged, driven by a combination of military humanitarianism, Christian missionary zeal, and Cold War anti‑communism. Paige focuses on Harry and Bertha Holt, an evangelical couple who became the face of Korean adoption. The Holts started by seeking out the multiracial children of American GIs – children whose “whitened” appearance struck a chord with US audiences. But when those children proved scarce, they simply turned to Korean children, fulfilling a waiting list of 10,000 American families. The Holts pioneered “baby lifts” – chartering old military cargo planes, removing the seats, and packing up to 100 infants on unpressurised, freezing, turbulent flights. Many children died en route. The system that emerged was reckless and coercive: adoptions by proxy (parents never met their child before the adoption was finalised), falsified records, and a global pipeline that eventually supplied children to Denmark, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Paige also documents a shocking pattern of murder – Korean children killed by their adoptive parents, cases that were largely ignored by a media more interested in feel‑good rescue narratives. What does it mean when good intentions produce harmful systems? Paige argues that the humanitarian narrative of adoption has often silenced the voices of adoptees themselves – their experiences of cultural loss, identity erasure, and, in the worst cases, violence. The book is a powerful call to reckon with the colonial assumptions embedded in intercountry adoption. Topics covered: The 2008 Iowa City murder and its connection to adoption history World War II displacement and the origins of intercountry adoption The Korean War and “military humanitarianism” Harry and Bertha Holt and the Christian adoption mission Multiracial children and the politics of “whiteness” The shift to adopting Korean children Baby lifts: unpressurised planes, sick infants, and deaths in transit Adoption by proxy and the lack of regulation European adoption pipelines (Denmark, France, Sweden, the Netherlands) Adoptee activism and the fight for truth and reconciliation Paige Towers’ What They Stole is available now from the University of Iowa Press. Please consider buying from an independent bookshop or directly from the publisher. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by cultural historian Murray Pittock to discuss his new book, The Shortest History of Scotland – a concise but richly detailed journey through two millennia of Scottish history, from the Picts to the present day. Scotland’s geography – the “land of the mountain and the flood”, in Walter Scott’s phrase – made it virtually impenetrable until modern roads and railways. For centuries, the sea was the highway, and Scotland’s east‑coast ports looked as much to continental Europe as to England. Understanding that terrain is key to understanding how Scotland became a state in historical time – and why the union with England was never a foregone conclusion. Murray explains the origins of his book, written as part of the bestselling Shortest History series, and the opportunity it offered to refresh a field dominated by either heavy tomes or outdated accounts. He focuses not just on kings and battles, but on people’s lived lives, culture, and the built environment – while also signposting readers towards deeper dives, such as the Declaration of Arbroath. We then turn to the present. The story of modern Scottish nationalism begins with Winnie Ewing’s shock by‑election victory in Hamilton in 1967, and her slogan “Stop the world – Scotland wants to get on”. The post‑imperial era marginalised Scotland’s distinctive identity; Britishness, once a broad, inclusive identity shared by Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders, suddenly became something narrower and more insular. The memory of the two world wars – particularly the myth of 1940 as an English, south‑east England story – has played a complex role in the union’s longevity. Murray explores the drivers of Scottish nationalism: economic anxiety, a desire for democratic control, and an internationalist outlook that became visible in the 2016 Brexit vote, where Scotland’s pattern diverged dramatically from England’s. He also reflects on the 2014 independence referendum – where pensions and currency fears likely tipped the balance – and on devolution, which Labour hoped would “kill nationalism stone dead” but which failed partly because Scottish Labour never truly became a nationalist party. We also discuss the formation of the union in 1707, a vote “forced” by economic weakness, English obstruction of Scottish overseas trade, and a lack of alternatives. The mercantile class later profited handsomely from the British Empire, shifting Scotland’s economic centre of gravity from east to west – from the European ports to Glasgow and the American trade. Topics covered: The geography of Scotland and its historical impact Walter Scott’s “land of the mountain and the flood” The Declaration of Arbroath Winnie Ewing and the birth of modern Scottish nationalism Post‑imperial Britishness and the Festival of Britain (1951) The memory of the world wars and its role in the union Drivers of Scottish nationalism: economic, democratic, internationalist The 2014 independence referendum and the currency/pensions question Devolution: Labour’s miscalculation The 1707 union: economic weakness, Darien, and a forced vote Murray Pittock’s The Shortest History of Scotland is available now from all good bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer or directly from the publisher. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History podcast, Nick sets the scene for an upcoming interview with historian Murray Pittock on The Shortest History of Scotland, reflecting on the current wave of nationalist politics across Scotland, Wales, and Ireland—and how these movements connect to wider shifts in British and English identity. From there, Nick turns to global affairs, unpacking the stark contrast between Richard Nixon’s landmark visit to China and Donald Trump’s far more troubled encounter with Beijing. What did Nixon understand about power, diplomacy, and long-term strategy that seems absent today? The episode explores the tangled relationship between the United States, China, and Iran, looking at how recent events may signal a shift in global power—and what that means for American influence, its allies, and the future of international politics. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by author Piers Blofeld to discuss his new book, Master of Lies: The Untold Story of Anthony Blunt, which re‑examines the most underestimated member of the Cambridge Spy Ring. Anthony Blunt was exposed as a Soviet agent in 1979 – long after the defections of Burgess, Maclean and Philby. For decades, he has been treated as something of an afterthought, a cultured art historian who happened to pass a few secrets to the Russians during the war. But Blofeld’s research paints a very different picture – one in which Blunt was not a minor player but a master of deception whose actions had catastrophic consequences. Blunt was recruited by the NKVD in the 1930s, joined MI5 during the war, and rose to become Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures. Officially, he stopped spying in 1945. In reality, he continued operating well into the 1950s and 60s, using his flat to debrief agents and helping to investigate the very defections of his fellow spies. But his most significant work was not stealing documents – it was disinformation. Blofeld argues that the “postgraduate level” of espionage is misleading your enemy, and Blunt was a virtuoso. He ran a deception operation that mirrored the famous “Garbo” double‑agent network, feeding the Germans false information that helped ensure the success of D‑Day. Crucially, Blunt’s information arrived at German High Command via Sweden four hours before Garbo’s did – making the deception far more convincing. Yet just three months later, Blunt sabotaged Operation Market Garden, releasing detailed Allied order of battle to the Germans. The result was 16,000 Allied casualties, a failed advance into Germany, and a prolonged war that allowed Stalin to seize Eastern Europe. Blunt’s betrayal, Blofeld argues, directly contributed to the partition of Berlin and the shape of the Cold War. We also explore how Blunt was protected by the British establishment for decades, how he edited incriminating evidence after Burgess and Maclean fled, and why Margaret Thatcher – herself misled by her own security services – finally named him in 1979. **Topics covered:** - The Cambridge Spy Ring and Anthony Blunt’s role - Blunt’s continued espionage after 1945 - Disinformation as the highest form of espionage - The Garbo deception and Blunt’s mirror operation - Operation Market Garden and Blunt’s sabotage - The cover‑up and protection of Blunt by MI5 - Thatcher’s outing of Blunt and its aftermath --- *Piers Blofeld’s *Master of Lies* is available from all good bookshops. Please consider buying from an independent retailer.* *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we examine a remarkable moment: the leading architect of the Project for a New American Century, Robert Kagan, admitting that the Iran crisis is a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions – and that America has effectively lost the war.** The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was the neoconservative think tank that shaped the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Its vision was a unilateral American empire, able to fight and win two major wars simultaneously, with Iran at the top of its enemies list. But now, writing in *The Atlantic* – the house magazine of liberal interventionism – Kagan has declared that the Gulf War is unwinnable, that Iran has seized control of the Straits of Hormuz, and that the post-war American order is finished. What does it mean when the neocons themselves admit defeat? Kagan acknowledges that Iran has turned the straits from a passageway of free navigation into the world's most significant global pinch point. Iran will now decide which regimes can access Gulf shipping and which will be economically starved. America cannot project power into the Gulf; it has presented itself as an unreliable ally. The consequences for Taiwan, Japan, and other US partners are dire: they will not hesitate to break ties if a powerful regional predator comes calling. Kagan’s only proposed alternative is a “massive generational land and air war” occupying Iran forever – an impossibility so absurd that it reveals the neocons’ delusion. The Saudis, meanwhile, have concluded that the US and Israel are the aggressors, and that the entire attack was designed to drag them into a war with Iran. The eight-decade alliance forged by Franklin Roosevelt is now fraying. America is being expelled from the Gulf. This is the end of Pax Americana. Regional powers will now call the shots. Smaller nations will have to accommodate larger neighbours. And the neocons – after decades of advocating violent empire – have finally admitted that the project for a new American century is dead. **Topics covered:** - The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) - Robert Kagan’s *Atlantic* article - Iran’s control of the Straits of Hormuz - The end of American naval supremacy - Saudi Arabia’s break with Washington - The collapse of Pax Americana - Neocon delusion and the impossibility of occupying Iran --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

**In this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we return to Eric Hobsbawm's magisterial overview of the 20th century, *Age of Extremes*, to explore the paradoxes that shaped our world – and the crisis that defines our present.** Hobsbawm argued that the "short twentieth century" – from 1914 to 1991 – was defined by the confrontation between capitalism and communism. But the relationship between these two systems was stranger than simple opposition. The victory over Hitler's Germany was essentially won, and could only have been won, by the Red Army. Without the Soviet Union, the Western world would likely consist of a set of variations on authoritarian and fascist themes, not liberal parliamentary ones. Yet the most lasting result of the October Revolution was to save its capitalist antagonists – by providing the incentive of fear to reform itself after the Second World War, and by furnishing it with the popularity of economic planning. The post-war Golden Age (1947–73) – that unprecedented era of rising living standards, mass consumption, generous welfare states, and growing life expectancy – was, in Hobsbawm's word, "anomalous". It emerged from specific historical conditions: the need to stave off communist challenge, the availability of cheap energy, and the destruction of old ruling classes. That Golden Age is now long gone. Neoliberalism has de‑industrialised the West, privatised public assets, and replaced productive capitalism with rentier capitalism – where we rent the infrastructure of our own lives back from global capital. Social democratic parties across the Western world have abandoned any commitment to redistribution, embraced managerialism, and collapsed into irrelevance. Right‑wing populists – Trumps, Orbáns, Farages – have rushed into the vacuum, offering not solutions but the spectacle of permanent crisis. Hobsbawm died in 2012, but his framework helps us see our moment: an era of decay, of institutional collapse, of centre‑left parties dying. As Gramsci put it, the old is dying and the new cannot be born. And that new may not be born in Europe or America. The centre of gravity is shifting eastwards – to India and China – returning to where most of human history has been centred. We are living through the death of the post‑war social democratic order. What comes next is uncertain – but it will not look like the past. **Topics covered:** - Hobsbawm's "short twentieth century" - The Red Army and the defeat of Nazism - The paradox of Soviet communism saving capitalism - The post‑war Golden Age (1947–73) as an anomaly - De‑industrialisation and the rise of rentier capitalism - The collapse of social democratic parties - Neoliberalism, the 2008 crisis, and the absence of alternatives - Right‑wing populism and kleptocracy - The shifting global centre of gravity to Asia --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we explore a little‑known but revealing corner of Russian history: the military press during the reign of Alexander II. After the humiliating defeat in the Crimean War, it was clear that Russia's army – and the autocracy that sustained it – needed fundamental change. Alexander II, who came to power as the war dragged on, embarked on a series of "Great Reforms", most famously the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. But reform was always a balancing act between modernisation and the preservation of autocratic power. Nowhere were these tensions sharper than in the military press. Historian E. Willis Brooks, in an essay from the collection *Reforming the Tsar's Army*, examines how War Minister D. A. Milyutin used newspapers and journals to communicate new ideas to officers and conscripts – while struggling to control the very voices he had unleashed. Publications like *Ruski Invalid* (The Russian Veteran) and *Voyeny Sbornik* (Military Review) were meant to be loyal instruments of state policy. But as they sought readers and relevance, their editors – some of them former utopian socialists – began to clash with government censors and even the Tsar's ministers. The result was a chaotic, semi‑autonomous press that both advanced reform and exposed its contradictions. We look at the founding of new military journals, the explosion in readership, and the uneasy partnership between Milyutin and his old radical acquaintance Colonel Pisarevskii, who was given the extraordinary task of running a government newspaper as a capitalist enterprise. Their struggle over "official" and "unofficial" opinions reveals the limits of censorship – even in an autocracy. Topics covered: - The Crimean War and Russia's military humiliation - Alexander II's Great Reforms - War Minister D. A. Milyutin - The military press: *Ruski Invalid*, *Voyeny Sbornik* - Censorship and the "epoch of sensorial terror" - The experiment of semi‑commercial government journalism - Pisarevskii, utopian socialism, and the dangers of editorial independence - How state‑led reform struggles with public communication If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we examine the enduring legacy of austerity – a policy that officially ran from 2010 to 2024, but whose cultural and political effects are still very much with us. The Labour government has made token gestures toward rolling back austerity – ending the two‑child benefit cap, for example – but the structural damage done to British society is likely unfixable without something approaching wartime levels of economic mobilisation. The real story, however, is not just about cuts. It is about how austerity was sold to the public. Drawing on Liam Stanley's *Britain Alone*, I explore how thrift became a nationalist virtue. The "keep calm and carry on" aesthetic, wartime nostalgia, and television shows like *Super Scrimper* turned prudent consumption into a marker of belonging. Those who made the "right" choices – growing vegetables, knitting, reusing leftovers – were celebrated as proper Britons. Those who didn't – often the working poor – were stigmatised as feckless, their poverty framed as a moral failing rather than a structural one. The two‑child benefit cap was never about economics. It was a weapon of class prejudice, designed to punish poor families for having "too many" children. And it worked – not because it saved money, but because it appealed to middle‑class anxieties about who deserves support. Austerity may be officially over, but its ideology of moralised consumption lives on. Topics covered: - The persistence of austerity after 2024 - The two‑child benefit cap and class prejudice - Liam Stanley's *Britain Alone* - Wartime nostalgia and "austerity chic" - The "keep calm" phenomenon - TV thrift programmes and the moralisation of consumption - How consumer choices became markers of national identity Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by author Douglas Brunt to discuss his fascinating new book, The Lost Empire of Emmanuel Nobel – the story of the greatest oil magnate you've never heard of, and the turbulent Russian decades that swept him away. Emmanuel Nobel, nephew of the more famous Alfred (inventor of dynamite and founder of the Nobel Prizes), built an oil empire that by 1900 had surpassed Standard Oil. His Nobel Brothers Petroleum Company dominated the oil fields of Baku (modern-day Azerbaijan), introduced the world's first oil tanker, and supplied the Tsar's military with fuel as the Russian army mechanised. He was, for a brief window, the most important oil man on the planet. But Emmanuel was more than an industrialist. He was an unusually enlightened employer in a brutal industry – building schools and housing for his workers, who proudly called themselves "Nobelites". His benevolent practices protected him during the 1905 revolution, when Rothschild's operations were targeted. Yet even his fortune and influence could not survive the seismic forces of the First World War and the Russian Revolution. Douglas traces the Nobel family's journey from Sweden into the Russian Empire, the grandfather's bankruptcy and reinvention, the technical genius of Ludwig Nobel, and Emmanuel's transformation of Baku from a backward oil field into a global powerhouse. We explore the modernising reforms of Tsar Alexander II and Finance Minister Sergei Witte, the shift from kerosene to gasoline as the internal combustion engine took root, and the geopolitical scramble for oil that made Churchill declare petroleum "more important than food". The conversation then turns to revolution. Douglas reveals Nobel's desperate final years – writing to British leaders, warning of the Red Army's advance on Baku, and offering a plan that might have crushed Bolshevism in its cradle. Had Churchill's advice been taken in 1919, the 20th century might have looked very different. Instead, Nobel fled in disguise, aided by former employees, and watched as Stalin systematically erased his legacy – tearing down statues, renaming streets and factories, and rewriting history. Orwell's *1984* was directly inspired by the erasure of Emmanuel Nobel. **Topics covered:** - The Nobel family's journey from bankruptcy to Russian industrial might - Alfred Nobel, dynamite, and the Nobel Prizes - Baku oil fields and the rivalry with Standard Oil - The invention of the world's first oil tanker - Tsarist modernisation and foreign investment - The 1905 revolution and Nobel's "enlightened employer" reputation - Lenin, Stalin, and the Bolshevik seizure of power - Why the British failed to intervene in 1919 – a sliding-door moment - Nobel's harrowing escape from Russia - Stalin's memory‑hole: how *1984* was inspired by Nobel's erasure *Douglas Brunt's previous book explored Rudolf Diesel; his new book, The Lost Empire of Emmanuel Nobel, is published on 19th May. Please consider ordering from an independent bookstore or directly from the publisher. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, I examine the slow-motion collapse of the political order that has defined British politics for a century – and what is likely to replace it. The term "political earthquake" gets overused. What is happening in Great Britain is more like a once‑in‑a‑century end of a political order. It began in 2024 with the death of the Conservative Party – a party that is unlikely to restore itself. And it will continue over the next few years with the death of the Labour Party. The May local elections, just a week away, will mark a major step. Labour is almost certain to lose two of the places it has dominated for generations: Wales (for a century) and London (for half a century). But this isn't just about one bad election night. It is the culmination of decades of neoliberal economics, deindustrialisation, austerity, and the systematic destruction of any alternative vision within the mainstream parties. I draw a historical parallel with the last time Britain's party system realigned: the years after the First World War, when the Liberal Party – the party of 19th‑century capital, free trade, and limited government – collapsed, replaced by a two‑party system of Labour and Conservatives. That system, cemented in 1945, survived for nearly eighty years. Now it is dying. The culprits are not just individual leaders. Thatcherism broke union power, atomised communities, and left Britain poorer and more unequal. The 2008 financial crisis blew up the economic assumptions of that model. Brexit smashed Britain's role as a transatlantic bridge between Washington and Brussels. Austerity killed hundreds of thousands, collapsed public services, and turned the country into a nation in de‑development. The Labour right's merciless destruction of the Corbyn movement left the party in the hands of a centrist technocrat, Keir Starmer – a man who, despite his blandness, has gleefully embraced racist rhetoric on immigration, supported Israel's genocide in Gaza, and handed state functions over to private equity vultures. Starmer's Labour has tried to tack to the right, hoping that voters will hold their noses and vote for "not far‑right". But that strategy is failing. In recent by‑elections, voters ignored Labour's warnings and voted Green or Plaid Cymru – proving that the old "vote for us or you'll get the fascists" threat no longer works. So what comes next? The beneficiaries are two very different parties. Reform UK – funded by a reclusive Bitcoin billionaire, backed by the propaganda channel GB News – offers a populist, proto‑fascist nationalism. The Green Party – untainted by private donations, hostile to the tabloid press, and offering a genuine left‑wing economic alternative – has already won a stunning by‑election on an anti‑racist, cost‑of‑living platform. The next decade could see Britain's political landscape transformed. A two‑party system of Reform and Greens is possible – though each would feel like an enemy occupation to the other side's voters. What is certain is that the old order is being taken out to a field and put out of its misery. And what caused it? Five decades of neoliberalism – an economic project that both main parties embraced, whose contradictions they are now incapable of addressing. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

**In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by Wendy Via of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism – a former Southern Poverty Law Center staffer – to discuss a new report on the transnational activities of far-right and anti-migrant groups around the world.** We often think of hate and xenophobia as local phenomena, but just like organised violence, the far‑right has become increasingly internationalised. The internet, political crises, and economic uncertainty have allowed extremist groups to learn from one another, share strategies, and normalise ideas that were once relegated to the fringes. Wendy explains how the movement has become more sophisticated in its branding. Neo‑Nazis still exist, but they no longer openly quote *Mein Kampf*. Instead, they speak of "protecting our culture" and "saving our families". The "great replacement" conspiracy theory – once confined to obscure writers – is now pushed by politicians and mainstream commentators, giving cover to unspoken reactionary ideas. We explore the alarming mainstreaming of far‑right politics. In Britain, the Conservative Party has moved from ostracising Enoch Powell to rehabilitating his ideas. In the United States, Trump’s open demonisation of Mexican immigrants – "they’re rapists" – did not end his campaign; it became a template for others. Across Europe, Latin America, and beyond, leaders have taken cues from Trump, turning immigration into an existential threat. The report also examines the rise of vigilante groups – self‑appointed militias patrolling borders and neighbourhoods. While there is no single centralised command, these groups communicate constantly, learning from each other’s tactics. Political leaders who call immigrants "the enemy" provide implicit encouragement, and wealthy figures like Elon Musk amplify hateful rhetoric, attracting young men – the demographic most vulnerable to far‑right extremism. Yet there is hope. Hungary’s recent election showed that people can push back against autocracy, even if the new leader remains conservative. A UK by‑election expected to be won by the far‑right Reform Party was instead won by the Green Party on an explicitly anti‑racist, economic populist platform. Across the world, countries are standing up to Trump and his allies, defending their sovereignty. By and large, people are decent – and the far‑right’s gains are not inevitable. **Topics covered:** - The transnational nature of far‑right extremism - The mainstreaming of the "great replacement" conspiracy theory - From Enoch Powell to the modern Conservative Party - Trump’s role in normalising hate - Vigilante groups and their cross‑border communication - Elon Musk’s influence on young men - Hungary’s rejection of Orbán’s corruption - The UK Green Party’s anti‑racist by‑election victory - Where to find hope in a dark political landscape --- *Wendy Via is co‑founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. Visit globalextremism.org for resources and to support their vital work.* *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. More details soon.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are roughly two camps. One argues that there is an overarching grand plan behind America's actions in Venezuela, Iran, Greenland, and against Russia's shadow fleet – a coherent strategy to choke off China's industries and make Europe energy-dependent on the United States. The other, more plausible camp sees imperial decline and the chaos that decline inevitably brings. I explore both. John Mearsheimer argues that America has suffered a catastrophic defeat. The evidence is stark: Iran has published a ten-point plan that includes the removal of American bases from the Gulf, continued uranium enrichment, and reparations – and Trump accepted it as the basis for negotiations. America is running out of Tomahawk missiles, having burned through eight to ten years of stockpiles in weeks. Its capital ships have been withdrawn out of Iranian missile range. The world's key strategic waterway is no longer under US control. But journalist Richard Medhurst makes a compelling case that this is all about China – a brutal attempt to cut off Chinese industry from Persian Gulf oil and force Beijing to negotiate from weakness. The problem is Trump. According to the New York Times, he went into this war on a whim – a "yeah, sounds good" after Netanyahu's sales pitch – overruling his own generals. The White House has been systematically de‑professionalised. Institutional memory is gone. Decision‑making is chaos. I draw a careful parallel with Hitler's regime: the removal of experts, the promotion of sycophants like Ribbentrop, the deliberate creation of administrative chaos to concentrate power. Trump surrounds himself with the same kind of people – Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff – who tell him what he wants to hear. From Tehran, this looks like a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity: remove the Americans from the Gulf forever, gain permanent leverage over the world, and finally deal with the threat of Israel. And Israel's standing in America has plummeted – not just among Democrats, but among the MAGA base as well. What we are witnessing is the end of a world order that began in 1991. Trump is not the cause of American decline – he is an accelerant. But the collapse is coming, and the consequences will be catastrophic. Topics covered: - Mearsheimer's thesis of strategic defeat - America's munitions crisis - Medhurst's blockade‑of‑China argument - Trump's chaotic, whim‑driven decision‑making - The de‑professionalisation of the White House - Hitler, Ribbentrop, and the parallel of sycophantic advice - Iran's once‑in‑a‑lifetime opportunity - Israel's collapsing popularity in the US - The end of the post‑Cold War order --- *If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us. We're migrating from Patreon to Substack – more details soon.* Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On 29th January 1991, President George H.W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress. America was at war with Iraq, having launched Operation Desert Storm to expel Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. Bush's tone was sombre, measured—a contrast to the triumphalism of his State of the Union a year earlier, when he had spoken of communism crumbling and a new era for the world. Now he spoke of something grander: a "new world order." "What is at stake is more than one small country. It's a big idea: a new world order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind—peace and security, freedom and the rule of law." Drawing on Kristina Spohr's excellent book Postwall Post Square, we explore the context of that speech. The first Gulf War was a remarkable moment: a coalition of 28 countries from six continents, including traditional allies like Britain and Australia, prickly partners like France, and even Arab nations like Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Most strikingly, the United States and the Soviet Union—despite Saddam being a long-time Moscow client—cooperated. Bush and Gorbachev had forged a personal accord, and the Cold War was over. But behind the grand rhetoric, the picture was more complex. Moscow's violent crackdown in Lithuania cast a shadow over the gleaming language of freedom. Bush struggled to balance his principled assertion of democratic values against his pragmatic need for Gorbachev's cooperation in the Gulf. And at home, America was sliding into recession. As Democratic Majority Leader George Mitchell pointedly reminded the president: "We have a crisis abroad, but we also have a crisis here at home." Bush invoked the lessons of history—the long struggle against Nazi totalitarianism—to justify American leadership. "We're the only nation on this earth that could assemble the forces of peace," he declared. "This is the burden of leadership and the strength that has made America the beacon of freedom in a searching world." Yet that liberal internationalist language—always a veneer for American imperialism—has now been eviscerated. Trump has abandoned any pretence of moral leadership. His decision to attack Iran, apparently taken after a chat with Netanyahu and against the advice of his own generals, has produced the greatest strategic disaster in American history, bar none. There is no exit strategy, no route to victory, no achievable objective. What Iran has done is fundamental. Unlike Vietnam or Afghanistan, where empires suffered humiliations but survived, America has been strategically and tactically defeated in the Persian Gulf. The petrodollar—propped up by American military power, bases, and security guarantees—is under threat. And once you show that American power is not all-conquering, it causes fragmentation in unprecedented ways. The distance from George H.W. Bush's "new world order" to Trump's chaotic adventurism is less than 40 years. Trump is not the cause of American decline; he is an accelerant to an ongoing process. The empire's days are numbered—and the world is about to become a much more dangerous place. Topics covered: George H.W. Bush's "new world order" speech (29th January 1991) The first Gulf War coalition and Soviet-American cooperation The contrast between liberal internationalism and American imperialism Domestic recession and the limits of presidential power Moscow's crackdown in Lithuania as a challenge to the new order The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of history Trump's Iran disaster and the absence of strategic thinking The petrodollar and the foundations of American hegemony How Iran has achieved a strategic defeat of the United States Trump as an accelerant, not the cause, of decline If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us. We're migrating from Patreon to Substack—more details soon. Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share. ▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory ▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com ▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper Website: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.