Show Notes
Hello all, hope you are doing well.
For a long time, I was skeptical of doing “re-runs” of History Impossible’s earlier episodes. I didn’t think that I had the “right” to do so, or something along those lines. Obviously, that’s a silly way of looking at things and, to be honest, it’s counterproductive. Many of you reading or hearing this have been with me since Day One (or near Day One) and many of you have likely gone through the entire show archive, and I love you all to pieces for it. But then I look at the calendar and I remember that it’s been nearly SIX YEARS since I started this little show. Six years is wild to think about. I was just breaking into the time period known as “real adulthood” in my early 30s. It’s certainly wild to think about where the time has gone and all the crazy things that have happened since then, both in my life and in the world around me.
That includes a historic presidential election this year, in which for only the second time in American history, a man has been elected for a non-consecutive term. It’s also historic because of his convicted criminal status (putting aside how one might feel about the validity of those convictions or the trials that produced them; this is historically significant no matter how you slice it or how much your mileage may vary). I have had several people ask me for my take on everything that has happened, and I have given it in small doses, but I’ve also had people ask me how I feel about the man—that is, Donald Trump—himself. I don’t have an answer that has pleased many people, but only a fair few likely know it has not changed since 2019, when I started History Impossible.
When I started this show, I came very close to beginning it with the “Muslim Nazis” series. But thanks to the advice of my good friend and guru Daniele Bolelli, I came to realize that I would be essentially imposing myself on the historical podcasting audience by asking them to commit to a series that, at the time, I assumed would take a few years (and boy was I right on that estimate, more than I knew). So I went with one-off’s for a while, occasionally foraying into thematic trilogies and two-parters. Some of these were my favorite stories to delve into, even until this very day. But my very first episode was one where I tried to unpack my feelings on Donald Trump from a historically comparative perspective, and looking back on that first episode, I think most of my feelings have remained consistent.
I have never liked the “fascism” comparison, much less the “Nazi” comparisons (I think that should just be obvious by now). But historian Niall Ferguson, many years ago now, helped break down just what kind of historical figure Donald Trump is. It inspired me, and, after a couple months of frantic research into the period of time Ferguson discussed in his above-linked talk, I was able to pull together a story about a next-to-unknown man from American history; the “Original Donald Trump,” if you will. And the first episode of History Impossible was born.
Because that was so long ago, and because I realized the idea of re-releasing episodes is really no big deal, I figured I would re-release that episode. Also, to be honest, because it has been a while since I released an audio episode for the podcast. Being trapped by a looming thesis prospectus in graduate school and the ongoing writing and research I am doing for my proper class has eaten up large amounts of my time, as has other projects to which I have committed. We still have some episodes coming before the end of the year and—god willing—an interview or two (though those are less certain), but I wanted to give something to those of you who have only recently found my work and just have not found the time to work your way back through six years of content.
Now like I said, I essentially endorse everything I researched, wrote, and said from this episode I did so many years ago, at least in broad strokes. I do not necessarily endorse the q
More from History Impossible
Hey everyone. No preamble here. Just a nice bonus as a thank you for your continued support. As the title suggests, this is an audio adaptation of an essay I wrote about the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and how it led me to reflect on my generation, that is millennials, seems to believe about itself regarding trauma, adversity, and the future.
We often hear about how the Second World War was more morally nuanced and complex than we have been led to believe. This is, to a certain extent, very true. The Axis powers meted out a level of genocidal destruction and suffering upon tens of millions of people across the world, decimating generations in places as far flung as Poland and the Philippines, and Croatia and China. To call their actions existential by their very nature is to arguably undersell the threat they posed. The Allies realized these were the stakes and were eventually faced with a very real question: what would it take to stop such a threat? It required what many have come to believe was the unthinkable: meeting destruction with destruction. And in meeting the Axis violence with more violence did indeed bring the war to its ultimate end.
In this newest episode of History Impossible we’re joined a second time by Richard Lim, host of the This American President podcast, who last appeared on this program a couple years ago to discuss the insane, contentious election of 1876. He is also the author of a new book, Refusing a Crown: How George Washington Changed the World, which releases on October 13, 2026, and covers the most significant aspect of America’s first president: his restraint from seizing power that almost certainly would have remained his.
“Because remember: Russia is a religious experience.” Those are the oft-repeated and well-said words by the host of The Eastern Border podcast, my good friend Kristaps Andrejsons. They are well-said because there are very few alternatives for explaining Russian actions, rhetoric, and political culture over the past near half-decade in its World War I-style conflict with Ukraine. The Russian religious experience, made emblematic by Kristaps’ and my favorite shared punching bag Aleksandr Dugin, is a phenomenon best understood as a more formalized and colossal version of what ISIS was ten years ago, and it helps explain why Kristaps believes the spiral of the Russian state as we currently know it is beginning in 2026.
Antizionism, as it has become, has been having a bit of a moment for going on three years. It is a tough nut to crack, given its various claims of varying legitimacy and, as we have covered more than once on History Impossible, its increasing tendency to veer into outright antisemitism, especially by those looking for a supposedly intellectual and moral veneer for their racial and geopolitical fixations. Part of the reason for this confusion is the complex intellectual history of the position, which, after 1948, became more complicated than the relatively straightforward debate over Jewish statehood before, during, and after the Holocaust.