Explaining History

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 cooperationThe contrast between liberal internationalism and American imperialismDomestic recession and the limits of presidential powerMoscow's crackdown in Lithuania as a challenge to the new orderThe collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of historyTrump's Iran disaster and the absence of strategic thinkingThe petrodollar and the foundations of American hegemonyHow Iran has achieved a strategic defeat of the United StatesTrump as an accelerant, not the cause, of declineIf you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us. We're migrating from Patreon to Substack—more details soon.

In the 21st century, China stands as a global economic powerhouse, a trajectory heavily influenced by the reforms initiated in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping. This episode delves into Deng's pivotal role, positioning him as the consequential figure bridging Mao Zedong's era and the present-day leadership of Xi Jinping.Drawing on David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism," we explore the economic, social, and ideological transformations that began with Deng's rise to power. At the outset of his reforms, China's economy was almost entirely state-controlled, marked by the "Iron Rice Bowl" system of employment and welfare, and a lagging agrarian sector organized by communes. Deng's initial aim was to lift China out of the chaos and impoverishment left by the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.The episode examines the gradual liberalization of the Chinese economy, starting with agricultural reforms that dissolved communes in favor of individual responsibility, and the emergence of Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs) as hubs of entrepreneurialism. We explore how these changes led to a surge in rural incomes initially, but also created stark urban-rural disparities and triggered the largest mass migration in world history.We also consider the concept of "neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics" and its applicability to Deng's era, where market forces were unleashed but carefully managed by the state and the Communist Party. The episode highlights key differences between Deng's approach and Xi Jinping's China, particularly in the management of capital and the state's directive role in strategic industries. While a vigorous Chinese capitalism thrives, the episode explains why a capitalist political class has not emerged to rival the Communist Party.Join us as we uncover the complex historical processes that shaped modern China, the figures who steered its course, and the ongoing debates about its unique economic and political model.

In this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we step back from the daily news cycle to examine a question that has shaped the modern world: what is the relationship between capitalism and democracy?For decades, we have been told that economic freedom and political freedom are two sides of the same coin—that the ability of capital to move freely, to invest, to accrue profits, is the mirror of the rights and liberties that citizens enjoy. This is one of the secular articles of faith upon which the Western world runs. But is it true?I argue that it is not. And arguably, it has never been true.We trace the history of this entanglement from the Cold War to the present. In the early years of the Cold War, faced with the seemingly unstoppable advance of communism, Western leaders—from Churchill to the architects of the emerging national security state—crafted a powerful narrative: whatever else communism was, it was antithetical to freedom. The Second World War had been fought as a war for freedom. The Norman Rockwell "Four Freedoms" posters were potent propaganda. And the sacrifices of that war became a powerful symbol, warning Western populations never to stray into totalitarianism again.But freedom, as a concept, served mainly those who already had power to exercise it. It became a convenient stick—not just to beat communism with, but to beat the left's various more moderate iterations across the democratic world. The constant attempt on the political right to conflate even the mildest formations of social democracy with totalitarianism began as a marginal position. But by the 1970s, the Hayekian neoliberals, waiting for their moment, found their crisis in the oil shocks and seized it.The 1970s and 1980s saw the brief Cold War compact between capital and social democracy shatter permanently. The decline of the Soviet Union made social democracy less of a necessity—and social democracy, from a left perspective, was always a concession granted by advanced capitalist societies when faced with the prospect of revolution. Bismarck's social reforms, the expansion of the franchise in 19th-century Britain, the acceleration of social reform after 1917—all were designed to stave off something worse.Now, we exist on the far side of neoliberalism. Capital has freed itself from almost all democratic constraints. It has captured the state rather than being liberated from it. The wealthiest man in the world openly agitates against democracies, insisting that far-right movements be elevated into power. And what we are experiencing in the global north—the slow erosion of rights, the gradual diminishment of the ability to challenge concentrated power—is something that large parts of the global south found very familiar during the Cold War.Yet there may be a silver lining. Trump is so blatant, so gratuitous, so willing to say the quiet part out loud, that resistance has an opportunity. In countries like Britain, the easy path of quiet collaboration no longer seems possible. Civil society is waking up. The political class is beginning to understand that toadying to Trump makes no difference.The danger is the continuity opposition—parties like the Democrats in the US, who squeeze back into power, celebrate superficial optics, keep the economic settlement intact, and set up the next round of extreme populism. If that is all we can offer, we might as well leave Trump where he is.

What happens if NATO collapses—or if the United States simply walks away? In this episode, we speculate on a future that feels closer than ever. With the Trump administration openly hostile to the alliance and European allies refusing to be dragged into an illegal war in the Persian Gulf, the post-WW2 transatlantic bargain is coming undone.We go back to the beginning: why NATO was founded to keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in. From Ernest Bevin’s Britain to the Truman Doctrine and the birth of Atlanticism, we trace how the alliance shaped the Cold War world. Then we ask the hard questions: Would a US withdrawal trigger a new European defense order? Could Russia really rebuild its empire? And what happens to American power, intelligence sharing, and the arms industry when the nuclear umbrella is gone?This is not a prediction—it’s a necessary speculation. The world at the end of the 2020s will look nothing like the one we entered. And the biggest winner of all might just be China.Welcome back to the *Explaining History Podcast*.

It's all too easy, when reading history, to see the world through the eyes of the coloniser rather than the colonised. The mandate system—the League of Nations framework through which Britain and France claimed legitimacy for their post-war territorial grabs—is often presented as a progressive innovation: a move from old-fashioned colonialism to enlightened trusteeship. But what did it look like from the perspective of those who suddenly found themselves under new rulers?Drawing on Susan Pedersen's extraordinary book *The Guardians*, we explore how the mandate system was intended to serve multiple, often contradictory purposes. For the victorious imperial powers, it was a tool to legitimate the territorial settlement agreed at Paris in 1919. For internationalists and League officials, it was a mechanism for spreading norms about trusteeship and the open door. For the people of Cameroon, Togo, Samoa, South West Africa, and the Arab provinces of the former Ottoman Empire, it was something simpler: a shameless betrayal of the promises of self-determination made when the Allies had their backs to the wall.We examine the petition process that emerged despite the explicit intentions of the mandate's architects. Neither the Covenant nor the mandate texts made any provision for petitioning; when the Milner Commission drafted the texts in 1919, all members save the American George Louis Beer agreed that allowing inhabitants to appeal to an international body would make "all administration impossible." Yet a petition process arose anyway—the achievement of thousands of men and women who, often at considerable risk, raised their voices against the new dispensation.We trace the path of those petitions: from West Africa, where Douala elites protested the transfer of their territories from British to French control; to Geneva, where William Rappard of the League Secretariat found himself sympathising with exiled Arab nationalists; to the corridors of power where Sir Eric Drummond, the League's Secretary-General, did everything possible to suppress these inconvenient voices.And we meet the figures who made the system work despite itself: J.H. Harris of the Anti-Slavery Society, who used his platform in *The Times* and *The Manchester Guardian* to amplify African grievances; Ormsby Gore, who argued that if a resident of a British colony could appeal to the Privy Council, surely an inhabitant of a mandated territory should be able to appeal to the League; and Rappard, who quietly circumvented his obstructive chief to raise the matter of petitions at the Permanent Mandates Commission's very first session.The story is one of imperial hubris, international idealism, and the unplanned emergence of a mechanism through which colonised peoples learned to claim that they too were nations deserving to be heard. It is also a story that challenges our conventional understanding of when and how the League of Nations failed.Topics covered:- The mandate system as imperial legitimation- Wilsonian internationalism vs. Anglo-French imperialism- The promise of self-determination and its betrayal- The petition process and its unplanned origins- West African resistance to partition- The Syrio-Palestinian Congress and Arab nationalist mobilisation- William Rappard and the conscience of the League- Sir Eric Drummond's obstructionism- The Permanent Mandates Commission's first session- Rethinking the failure of the League of Nations from a colonised perspective---Susan Pedersen's The Guardians is the best book on the mandate system I have ever read—a work of extraordinary scholarship that recovers the voices of those too often silenced in the archives.If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us. We're migrating from Patreon to Substack—more details soon.

Host: NickEpisode OverviewIn this somber and reflective episode, Nick steps away from traditional historical narratives to analyze what he believes is a pivotal, "apocalyptic" turning point in the 21st century. Drawing on the concept of "Westlessness," Nick argues that current tensions in the Persian Gulf and the shifting political landscape in the United States signal the definitive end of Western hegemony and the violent birth of a truly multipolar world.Key Themes and Discussion PointsThe Concept of "Westlessness": Nick revisits the ideas of Dr. Samir Puri, discussing the relative rebalancing of world power. He suggests that we are moving past a world where Western liberal democracy and free markets are hegemonic, entering an era where they are merely one of many competing influences.The First War of the Multipolar Order: Nick posits that the current situation in the Persian Gulf represents a tipping point. He argues that powers like Iran and China represent forces that the United States can no longer "bomb into submission," marking a limit to Western hard power.The Moral Decline of Western Institutions: The episode explores the perceived "discrediting" of international law. Nick argues that Western complicity in global conflicts and the failure to uphold the rights of refugees and international borders has stripped the West of its moral authority in the eyes of the Global South.The Internal Western "Civil War": Nick identifies a structural conflict between two elite factions:The Traditional "Brahmin" Elite: The neoliberal political class (Reagan/Thatcher consensus) that has overseen mass privatization and social stagnation.The Insurgent Populist Elite: Figures like Trump, Orbán, and Netanyahu, who weaponize cultural grievances to build coalitions while dismantling democratic checks and balances.The Rise of "Pax Sinica": While the West is mired in "never-ending wars" and internal discord, Nick points to China’s strategic patience. He speculates that we may see a future where Europe—feeling abandoned or exploited by a Trump-led America—pivots toward Beijing to connect "Brussels to Beijing" in a new economic reality.Notable Quote"We are witnessing... one of the key pivotal moments of the 21st century, a moment for which I think whatever happens next, there's no coming back from where we're at."Final ThoughtsNick concludes the episode with a stark outlook for the 21st century, predicting a diminished and poorer America and Europe. He promises to return to "proper history" in the next episode but emphasizes the necessity of reflecting on these historic shifts as they happen in real-time.Links & Resources mentioned:Westlessness by Dr. Samir Puri.The Explaining History website (for ad-free content and ethical streaming options).

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we continue our examination of the unfolding crisis in the Persian Gulf—a crisis that has now reached a point where the world may already be past the threshold of avoiding a major economic recession, perhaps even a depression.The situation is grim. Trump, through a combination of staggering incompetence and hubris, has launched America into a conflict it cannot win. The proposed invasion of Kharg Island—Iran's largest refinery—would not bring the Iranians to the negotiating table. It would do what Operation Rolling Thunder and the bombing of North Korea failed to do: it would harden Iranian resolve, because for the regime, this is existential.I explore the historical precedents. The Dardanelles campaign of 1915 shows what happens when great powers attempt to force narrow waterways defended by determined opponents. British and French ships were sunk by mines and coastal batteries; the naval approach was abandoned. The Straits of Hormuz are narrower than the Dardanelles. Any warship that sails through them today would likely be sunk before sunset—not by shore batteries, but by swarms of cheap drones.This is the great inflection point of 21st century warfare. A few hundred drones launched at a carrier group can overwhelm its defensive systems. The era of the aircraft carrier as the unchallenged tool of world order is ending. China has been signalling this for years with its spectacular drone displays over Beijing. The message is clear: "Imagine what we can do if we attach something to them."The geopolitical consequences are already unfolding. Europe is rapidly rapproaching with Russia to secure energy supplies. The Ukraine war will likely be settled in Russia's favour. The special relationship between Britain and America is dying—Rachel Reeves, the British Chancellor, choosing Ursula von der Leyen over Trump was a signal that the political class has finally understood that clinging to American coat-tails no longer offers protection, only entanglement.And then there is Israel. Netanyahu, facing inevitable legal consequences, has a vested interest in perpetual conflict. He has found in Trump a president of almost unimaginable incompetence—one who surrounds himself with informal advisors, ignores professional intelligence, and has torn apart the State Department. This is the gangster state model: don't trust the clever people, because clever people find ways to outwit thugs.Trump is now trapped in a lose-lose scenario. Either he escalates—leading to a Vietnam-style war of attrition that will destroy him and the global economy—or he retreats on Iranian terms. The Iranians will extract very painful concessions: American withdrawal from the Gulf, reparations, a levy on Gulf shipping that will make them extraordinarily wealthy.This is how empires decline. Not through sudden collapse, but through catastrophic blunders that reveal the limits of power. The Dardanelles, Suez, Vietnam—and now the Straits of Hormuz. Trump will go down in history as the most incompetent US president, but his place in the history books will be secured not by his crimes or his attempted coup, but by the gift he has given Iran: a humiliation that dwarfs 1979.Topics covered:The economic consequences of the Gulf crisisThe proposed invasion of Kharg Island and its strategic impossibilityThe Dardanelles campaign as historical precedentDrones and the end of the aircraft carrier eraEurope's rapprochement with RussiaThe death of the special relationshipNetanyahu's interest in perpetual conflictTrump's informal, de-professionalised decision-makingThe gangster state model and its historical parallelsIran's potential terms for ending the conflict

Description:In this episode, Nick explores a question currently weighing on the minds of historians and observers alike: are we witnessing the opening stages of a third global conflict? Drawing on the work of Richard Overy and examining the "quasi-peace" of the 20th century, Nick argues that our definitions of "World War" may be too narrow, often ignoring the unrelenting conflict experienced by the Global South since 1945.We delve into the "hollowing out" of the American economic imperium—a transition from the industrial powerhouse of the Eisenhower era to a financialized economy struggling with internal stagnation. Nick compares the relative decline of the United States to Britain’s post-war trajectory, examining how the rise of China as a strategic, state-planned power has fundamentally broken the neoliberal order of the 1990s. From the resource-driven proxy wars in Venezuela and Iran to the looming shadow of the Taiwan Strait, we ask: can a "Great Power settlement" be reached, or are we destined for a generational period of violent transition?

It's been a few days since we last looked at the Persian Gulf crisis, and events are racing forward at such a pace that the only sensible approach is to take a step back and examine the deeper patterns. Behind the headlines about Trump's impulsive decision-making lies a far more consequential story: the moment when a medium-sized power with cheap drones and missiles can hold the world's energy supplies hostage, and the world's sole superpower finds itself with no good options.I begin with the decision-making in Washington—or rather, the absence of it. Trump, advised by Netanyahu and a handful of Fox News personalities, appears to have launched this war on a whim, assuming he could create "media noise" with no thought to an exit strategy. Military planners who understand the region have been overruled. The system of American governance has decayed to the point where a single egotistical hustler can launch the country into a no-win scenario.Why no-win? Because Iran has been preparing for this moment for years. Its arsenal of drones, rockets, missiles, mines, and attack boats makes the safe navigation of the Straits of Hormuz virtually impossible. The idea of an international naval flotilla—Trump's proposed solution—is laughable. You would have to maintain it forever, and Iran would interpret any passage not agreeable to them as a hostile act.I draw a historical parallel: the Dardanelles campaign of 1915. The reason the Allies landed at Gallipoli was because the first attempt to sail through the straits ended in disaster, with British and French ships sunk by shore-based fortifications. The Straits of Hormuz will become exactly that kind of killing zone. It doesn't matter how big your navy is. How many capital ships is America willing to sacrifice for a war Trump started on a whim? How many American lives before the outcry sweeps him from office?The asymmetry of war is changing. Cheap, mass-produced drones—with motorcycle engines and mobile phones for guidance—can overwhelm anti-missile systems like Patriot and THAAD. Aircraft carriers, the symbol of American power for eighty years, may no longer be the tools for enforcing world order that they once were. China has been signalling this for years with its spectacular drone displays over Beijing: "Imagine what we can do if we attach something to them."Then there are the geopolitical consequences. Europe will rapidly rapproche with Russia to access cheap hydrocarbons. The Ukraine war will likely be settled in Russia's favour. The push for renewables will gain a new argument: national security, liberation from Trump's whims. Rachel Reeves, the British Chancellor, has already signalled where the wind is blowing, choosing Ursula von der Leyen over Trump when asked.The special relationship is dying. Suez was a humiliation; this is worse. The British political class is finally waking up to the reality that clinging to America's coat-tails no longer offers protection—only entanglement in unwinnable wars.And then there's Israel. Nuclear-armed, increasingly isolated, and with an American public whose support has reached an all-time low. If America withdraws from the Gulf, what sense does it make to support Israel as Iran's key enemy? But Israel has always reserved the right to act unilaterally. The situation between Iran and Israel is the one that will continue, long after the current crisis resolves—if it resolves.I end with two possible futures: a quick resolution where Trump claims an illusory victory and moves on, or a protracted conflict that drags the world into an endless energy crisis. Either way, the lesson of North Korea has been learned: the only protection against American aggression is a nuclear weapon. Iran will never sign another enrichment treaty.