"Modern war is a war of motors. The war will be won by the side that has an overwhelming superiority in the output of motors"

- Joseph Stalin, November 1941.

Here we will explore the common assertion that Stalingrad was the turning point during WWII.

"Defense network computers. New... powerful... hooked into everything, trusted to run it all. They say it got smart, a new order of intelligence. Then it saw all people as a threat, not just the ones on the other side. Decided our fate in a microsecond: extermination."

-- Kyle Reese, from the movie The Terminator (1984)

A recent study by a British team on AI and the use of nuclear weapons found that AIs used nuclear weapons in 95% of scenarios. Are we on the verge of Skynet?

"Before we’re through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell."

– Admiral William F. “Bull” Halsey upon seeing the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

In 1958, US Admiral Chester W. Nimitz wrote a controversial article titled “Our Good Luck at Pearl Harbor.” It was a surprising revelation that prompted Nimitz to explain and defend himself for the rest of his life. To his credit, he remained firm in his conviction and was always willing to explain his reasons.

In this episode, we ask whether or not Nimitz’s controversial statement made over 60 years ago is sustainable, given just how destructive the Japanese surprise attack was on December 7, 1941.

"The epithets of drill instructors or fellow soldiers - 'maggot,' 'faggot,' 'snuffy,' 'pussy,' or simply 'woman' - left no doubt that not becoming a soldier meant not being a man."

- Mark Gerzon

This episodes question is straightforward: why have human societies across cultures, continents, and eras have met the challenge of war in basically the same way: by assembling groups of fighters who were usually exclusively males. The answer I would argue is also straightforward. We just happen to have forgotten it because our societies and our wars do not resemble anything in the prior 300,000 year history of Homo sapiens.

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."

- American boxer Mike Tyson

The viral question of Spring 2025 on Social Media: who would win in a fight, 100 men or 1 gorilla? Here, we look into history for insights into how humans would behave in the situation. And remember, these examples are coming from men specifically selected and trained for months to fight in cohesive groups...

“Of the 403,272 tank soldiers (including a small number of women) who were trained by the Red Army in the war, 310,000 would die. Even the most optimistic troops knew what would happen when a tank was shelled. The white-hot flash of the explosion would almost certainly ignite the tank crew’s fuel and ammunition. At best, the crew—or those at least who had not been decapitated or dismembered by the shell itself—would have no more than ninety seconds to climb out of their cabin. Much of that time would be swallowed up as they struggled to open the heavy, sometimes red-hot, hatch, which might have jammed after the impact anyway. The battlefield was no haven, but it was safer than the armored coffin that would now begin to blaze, its metal components to melt. This was not simply “boiling up.” The tank would also torch the atmosphere around it. By then, there could be no hope for the men inside. Not unusually, their bodies were so badly burned that the remains were inseparable. “Have you burned yet?” was a question tank men often asked each other when they met for the first time. A dark joke from this stage in the war has a politruk informing a young man that almost every tank man in his group has died that day. “I’m sorry,” the young man replies. “I’ll make sure that I burn tomorrow.”

Catherine Merridale, Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945

“That is a war that’s dying to be settled. I will get it settled before I even become president.”

- Donald Trump, during a September 2024 presidential debate

US President-elect Donald Trump has for two years loudly and boldly proclaimed that the Russia-Ukraine war needs to end, and that he is uniquely qualified to quickly bring that about. This episode explores the challenges Mr. Trump will face in his efforts to bring about a deal that is satisfactory enough for both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. By far the most important aspect in armistice negotiations between warring parties is the current military situation, the “realities on the ground” to use a commonly used phrase. That will be the focus on this episode. We will also look into potential options for the incoming US President might explore as he attempts to navigate a situation that even has recently indicated was more difficult than the Middle East. Either way, we will soon learn just how influential Mr. Trump’s reputation as a strong-minded figure who is nevertheless willing to broker deals will be on a Russia-Ukraine War that is nearing its third year.

“When America had defeated Japan by detonating an atomic bomb, the Führer had sent a V-3 rocket to explode in the skies of New York to prove he could retaliate in kind if struck. After that, the war had dwindled to ... a nuclear stalemate the diplomats called the cold war.”

- Robert Harris, from the novel Fatherland.

In this episode we continue to look at one of the most common “What If?” questions in history: the plausibility of the Axis powers (specifically Germany) winning the Second World War. Also, probably the most complicated. In the first part, we looked at historical patterns and the major factors that greatly favored the Allies. Nevertheless, Germany seemed to be in a good position by the Autumn of 1940, even if it was defeated in the Battle of Britain. The British Empire's position in the Mediterranean and the Middle East seemed vulnerable, the Soviet Union was still collaborating with Nazi Germany, and the United States was still neutral. We pick up the story here and explore possible alternative paths history might have taken. We try to stay true to the historical circumstances and key factors that weighed on leaders and decision makers that made the events of WWII unfold as it did. While the obstacles of an Axis powers seem daunting, maybe there was an alternative path Germany and Japan could have taken for a different outcome.