Explaining History

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.