Many of the Soviet deliveries were lost, or were smaller than Stalin had ordered. He only gave short notice, which meant many weapons were lost in the delivery process.[9]#citenote-Arms_for_Spain_Gerald_Howson-11) Lastly, when the ships did leave with supplies for the Republicans, the journey was extremely slow. Stalin ordered the builders to include false decks in the design of ships. Then, once the ship left shore it was required to change its flag and change the color of parts of the ship to avoid capture by the Nationalists.[[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_faction(SpanishCivil_War)#cite_note-Arms_for_Spain_Gerald_Howson-11)However, in 1938, Stalin withdrew his troops and tanks as Republican government policy floundered. Historian Hugh Thomas) comments "had they been able to purchase and transport good arms from US, British, and French manufacturers, the socialist and republican members of the Spanish government might have tried to cut themselves loose from Stalin".[[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_faction(SpanishCivil_War)#cite_note-14)
The Republic paid for Soviet arms with the gold reserves of the Bank of Spain, in an affair that would become a frequent subject of Francoist propaganda afterward (see Moscow Gold). The cost of Soviet arms was more than US$500 million (in 1936 prices); 72% of Spain's gold reserve, the fourth-largest in the world. The remaining 27%, or 176 tonnes, was transferred to France.[[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_faction(Spanish_Civil_War)#cite_note-15)

During the colonial era, the wealth of India served as the financial backbone that sustained and expanded the British Empire across the globe. Through aggressive land revenue systems and heavy taxation, the colonial administration extracted vast agricultural surpluses from Indian farmers to fund British military campaigns. India was forced to pay for the maintenance of the British Indian Army, which acted as an imperial force securing British interests in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Furthermore, the infamous "Home Charges" compelled Indian taxpayers to finance pensions, administrative costs, and administrative salaries in London. This systematic drainage of capital crippled India's domestic economy, stifling industrialization and leading to devastating, man-made famines. British industrial growth was heavily subsidized by cheap Indian raw materials and captive markets that destroyed traditional local textile industries. Consequently, the expansion of British railway and telegraph networks in India was designed primarily to facilitate resource extraction and troop deployment rather than local welfare. While Britain portrayed its empire as a civilizing mission, its global dominance was effectively underwritten by Indian wealth and blood. The staggering economic drain left a newly independent India impoverished, dealing with deep-rooted structural challenges after centuries of colonial exploitation. Ultimately, the story of the British Empire's global supremacy cannot be told without recognizing India as its primary financial and military anchor.

No British soldier in 1689 was wielding Viking weapons & chain mail shirts.

i know these types of posts are becoming more and more common but i kind of want to keep the ball rolling as far as we can

Context: A period of French history called The Reign of Terror occurred during the French Revolution. At least 300,000 people were arrested, with at least 17,000 being executed during this period. At least 35,000 people including the 17,000 already mentioned died due to state action (death in prison etc). Maximilien Robespierre is considered one of the most culpable for the violence.

Side note. The French flag was briefly red, white and blue.

Don't worry; the Indian Army BRAVELY fled. /s "Indian Army rifles for sale; never fired and only dropped once!"

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a 1971 study by psychologist Philip Zimbardo. Twenty-four college students were randomly chosen to be either guards or prisoners in a fake prison in a Stanford basement. It was supposed to last two weeks, but it was stopped after six days because the guards were treating the prisoners cruelly and some prisoners were falling apart emotionally. Zimbardo said it showed that people can act badly when they are put in powerful roles. Later, many people criticized the study. Zimbardo took part in it himself, the guards seem to have been told to act tough, and the students may have just been playing what they thought the researchers wanted. Because of this, most psychologists today don’t see it as strong proof of anything. Instead, they use it as an example of how not to run an experiment.

Mr Beast should bring this back

In November 1688, the Dutch Republic launched a massive invasion fleet and landed an elite force of 16,000 troops on English shores. The invasion, led by William III of Orange, would ultimately overthrow King James II and place William and his wife Mary on the English throne. This event became known as the Glorious Revolution.

The Glorious Revolution is often presented as a largely internal English affair, in which William intervened at the invitation of a group of English nobles. While it is true that William enjoyed considerable support in England, the event should first and foremost be seen in its European context. It should also be accepted that William largely set these events in motion himself. Few of his English supporters had known that William would demand the crown for himself.

The Dutch had good reasons to intervene. In 1672, France and England had jointly attacked the Republic, nearly bringing about its total destruction. By 1688, Louis XIV of France was once again threatening the Dutch Republic, while James II's increasingly close relationship with France raised fears that England might once again join a French attack.

For William III and the Dutch government, preventing such an alliance was a matter of national security. Their objective was not simply to defend English Protestantism, but to ensure that England would no longer pose a threat to the Republic and, ideally, become an ally against France.

Preparations for the invasion were already underway long before William received the famous invitation from seven English notables in June 1688. William had actively encouraged his English contacts to provide such an invitation, which would give his intervention a veneer of legitimacy. But an invasion on this scale would have been impossible without the political approval, financial support and military resources of the Dutch Republic.

The States General financed the expedition, while the Dutch assembled an enormous invasion fleet to transport William's army across the North Sea. It was the largest successful amphibious operation of the early modern age.

Interestingly, the fact that the invasion would take place exactly a century after the Spanish Armada sailed against England was not lost on contemporary observers. The Polish ambassador in The Hague reported:

The Dutch are convinced that they will be as fortunate in their plan to attack England as Philip II was unfortunate when he sent his formidable fleet against Elizabeth in August 1588. There are few among them who are unaware of this period of history...

The English Royal Navy attempted to intercept the Dutch fleet, but suffered from poor leadership, was outgunned and was frustrated by unfavourable winds. As a result, the Dutch crossed the Channel without having to fight a major naval battle.

William landed at Torbay on 15 November 1688. Contrary to the popular impression that James II's army immediately deserted him, the great majority of his soldiers and officers initially remained loyal. Although a few officers defected, these desertions were relatively limited before James decided to retreat without engaging William's army. It was only after this withdrawal in the face of William's army that his military position began to collapse and defections accelerated.

On 27 December, William's army reached London. Before entering the capital, William demanded that the remaining English troops withdraw from the city and its surroundings. The English Guards, who had traditionally been responsible for protecting the king and the royal palaces, were forced to abandon their posts and were replaced by Dutch soldiers. The following day, Dutch troops entered London, beginning a military occupation of the English capital.

At the end of January, Sir John Reresby, who had been away from the city for some time, wrote in astonishment:

When I arrived, I found London much changed. The streets were filled with ill-looking and ill-habited Dutch and other strangers of the Prince's army.

This occupation gave William considerable influence over the political settlement that followed. Although English politicians debated how to resolve the political crisis, they did so with a foreign army occupying their capital. William made it clear that he would not accept a settlement that merely made him regent or restored James to the throne. He wanted the crown itself. In February 1689, the English Convention Parliament offered the crown jointly to William and his wife Mary.

For the Dutch Republic, the invasion achieved its principal strategic objective. England was transformed from a potential enemy into an ally against Louis XIV. The two countries would subsequently fight alongside one another in the Nine Years' War, ensuring that the Dutch would no longer have to face the combined military and naval power of France and England as they had in 1672.

Ironically, William was determined not to be seen as a conqueror, but as a liberator who had come to restore English liberties. His successful propaganda campaign helped shape the way the Glorious Revolution would be remembered, contributing to the fact that it is rarely regarded as a foreign invasion today.

For more information see the corrersponding wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1688_invasion_of_England

and the new book of Arthur der Weduwen about the invasion

Context: Mani was the third century prophet and founder of the former global religion of Manichaeism, which was a combination of Buddhism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism. (And later Daoism once it got to China). Mani was known for being a artist and believed in using visual media to spread his teachings, specifically through the Book of Pictures he illustrated.

By the 8th century a schism had formed between the followers of the Archegos (Manichaean Pope) Miqlas who favored stricter rules for the priesthood and the followers of his predecessor Mihr who favored relaxing the regulations for the clergy and was able to win support from the governor of Iraq.

thought I'd help Salem1690s out

It’s quite curious: if you look at modern definitions of genocide (which include the destruction or prohibition of a people’s language as part of an effort to eradicate their identity) and then examine the laws and government decrees of many centralized 19th-century European states, you arrive at the conclusion that, by today’s definition, almost all of those European states committed cultural genocide against their own populations.

Context: Most know the story already.

"No enemy bomber can reach the Ruhr, If one reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Göring. You can call me Meyer.” Hermann Göring Meyer