To be fair India was quite balkanised back then which made it a lot easier to conquer, it wasn't a single country and so you can't really call "India" rich, that's similarly if i say that EU was the wealthiest country for the most of recent history without even existing

thank you

27:03 Democratic centralism is a form of organisation that Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, and other democratic centralists abide by, both when having seized the government and also while trying to seize it. Most communist parties have a democratic centralist structure. In party meetings, a motion (new policy or amendment, goal, plan or any other kind of political question) is moved (proposed). After a period of debate, a vote is taken. If one vote clearly wins (gaining a share of 60% or above among two options, for example) all party members are expected to follow that decision, and not continue debating it. The goal is to avoid decisions being undermined by participants whose views are in the minority. In the development of socialism in the Soviet Union and China, it was implemented in response to rapid political developments, which required faster mechanisms of decision-making. Before an issue has been voted on and carried out, discussion and criticism is permitted in all forms. Once a resolution is being carried out, discussion and criticism which may disrupt unity in performing the action is forbidden, to ensure that the action is not derailed.[5] In several socialist states, related practices were also adopted to ensure freedom of discussion, such as Mao's "Don't Blame the Speaker".[6] Some Trotskyist and orthodox Marxist perspectives describe "deficient" forms of democratic centralism as "bureaucratic centralism," often those espoused by Marxist-Leninists. According to these views, bureaucratic centralism de-prioritises democracy, and thus fails to serve the interests of the proletariat.

Rewatching this, I’m reminded how much I love these longer series. The slower pace is lovely.

Can you do the servile wars, and the Paris commune too ?

I still think he was wildly wrong about where the heartland of Afro-Eurasia is. It's not tucked away in Europe. It's the arc from the Nile to the Indus. That's how Persia was able to be one of the greatest powers in history even when it was far smaller than neighbours.

It continues even today

Hello Strategy Stuff, hope you have good holidays. Your videos on geoeconomics was a massive inspiration for my thesis that let me graduate this year!

They had a 1905 Revolution which Trotsky called a dress rehearsal for October.

Pacific Ocean is the future of free World¡¡¡Mr.Mahan was right¡¡

Where's part one?

Bro where are you

Excellent concise analysis.

Very well made. Thank you for this.

What a masterclass! Thank you!!!

Hel yeah watchin in late nov 2024

Fantastic work

Basically they came up with this load of crap to justify the ruthless dictatorship and kleptocracy of the Russian ruling class

What happened to part 1??

Excellent analysis! Thank you for bringing this to light!

Great video ⬜🟦⬜.

Hey, love your work, but could you include inline citations within your scripts? I understand including citations may take more work for the slides but I’d appreciate citations within the script (similar to how Wikipedia articles look) It would help anyone interested in further research into specific topics you touch upon in your videos. Thanks!

British f Maratha easily

4 conquests, including the Spanish

"Who controls eastern europe rules the world" One of the dumbest political theories in history, and it wasnt even made by russianals Pure deluded 1800s British paranoia about Russia

there is no eurasian civilization on the planet, its just propaganda from 100 mil russians in russia , 80 mil in the european part, to subjugate some less fortunate demographically and militarily weak groups of people that have the unfortunate luck to bee their neighbours, a rationalization of playing a mini empire again just for a cheap power trip. the only real major civilizations on the planet are the sinnic with 900 mil people, hindic with around 600 to 700 mil people, anglo saxon and hispanic with around 500 mil people each and arabic with almost 400 mil, with the hispanic and arabic in terms of power beeing neutralized and anglo saxon and sinnic competing for global supremacy while the hindic is trying to rise. the world is a democratic place, be it with dictators or not, where global perception is key to everything, and demographics is the corner stone for power, be it aware like the americans or unaware like the hispanics, with the rest of the 5 bil people besides these 5 major civilization beeing pulled in way or another unless they manage to organize themselfs as to not be dominated, russia is way out of it's league and is playing a very dangerous game that may lead it to get it's nose broken really badly if doesn't stop fng around by trying to see what its actually size really is ,if it so insists in pushing the buttons of some of the other big players on the planet

Your videi is a fascinating and inspiring look into the revolutionary years. Bravo to you, this is one of your best.

bro you're beast these videos are some of the best ever. You deserve a medal 🏅

Dude, excellent video! Thanks!

The US Health Program in Latin America played a fundamental role in the developing of the National Health System in Brazil. (according to a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health)

The site bellow carries publications in several languages about Brazil's foreign relations history. It's part of the Itamaraty Palace (Brazil's Whitehall). www.gov.br/funag/pt-br

Did you know that right after Hitler invaded Poland, Gen. George Marshall came to Brazil to start negotiations? Marshall knew the US would eventually enter the war and that Brazil would be strategically important because of natural resources (rubber¹ for instance) and because the NE part of Brazil is the closest place to North Africa in the Americas. 1) Nearly 30,000 people died of Malaria extracting rubber in the Amazon forest for the War Effort.

The US under Roosevelt during WWII was extremely important for Brazil's economic and social development. Franklin Roosevelt supported Gen. Getúlio Vargas who, at the time, was leading the bloodiest dictatorship in Brazil's history. At the same time, Vargas was also creating the institutions that made Brazil a real mass democracy. Roosevelt's bet paid off!

Hi S.S, hope you're doing well! Just want to ask if youre planning on making new videos. Your work is a real gift and I'd love to see more of it. As an aside, have you considered making videos on the Portuguese wars of hegemony in the Indian Ocean? It's real interesting stuff - arguably the first "Modern" war, with simualtenous theatres from Somalia to Indonesia. I think it'd be fascinating to cover!

British couldn't conquer Maharaja Yashwantrao. Holkar was defeated only after his death

I'm from Holkar clan. Maharaja Yashwantrao Holkar is our hero

HEHE This chap thinks we actually cared! we were busy fighting the rest of the known ... well those of importance, world.

Punjabi+English=Punglish Nobody give importance to half baked knowledge by some Punglish speaking people.

15:10 when did Marx state this?

The point that was made at 22:10 was the old consensus of historiography Wellington's military career post-India, and it is demonstrably incorrect. Many of the lessons learnt during India, such as coalition warfare, importance of secure logistics chains, and I'd say most importantly, attacking at every practical opportunity he would later utilise. In each campaign in Iberia, he certainly attempted to take the offensive, and even if it ended with retreat such as his retreat to the Lines of Torres Vedras, it doesn't diminish his intention to always attack when advantages were present. Rather than disregarding his lessons from India, I'd say the opposite is true; India was an essential learning curve for Wellington's success in the Peninsular War.

Can you do one of these for Ukraine 2014?

As well as resources Japan also wanted a buffer against communism. Manchuria was also occupied to act as a buffer state against a potential Chinese communist regime which well could have emerged in the 1930s, and with the creation of the soviet Mongrel republic Japan became increasingly concerned. America also wasn’t a passive issue, they too were seeking a war with Japan in by 1940, primarily as a back door into the European war, and Roosevelt saw he could put immense pressure on Japan via oil embargo’s and get them to retaliate, thus justifying American entry into the war, especially since all his provocative actions against Germany yielded no results.

👌👌

24:15 this is actually insanely smart, if you just paid the mercs with gold, then they may well decide to stick around and keep fucking about. Why go home until the ship is full of gold, right? But by giving them shares, suddenly it’s in the mercs interest to leave india. They need to go to Europe to sell those shares. Plus, if they stick around and cause problems for the EIC, then… that might cause the shares to go down in value. Suddenly an enemy now values the company itself and they can get the most out of their shares by ensuring it does well - at least until they get to Europe and sell them, and that’ll get them out the way for a good long time.

Please do an episode on the grand strategy of the early Qing dynasty against Dzhungar Khanate.

is this legit?

Hi Strategy stuff, I've been a long time enjoyer of your videos, and if you have a patreon, you're one of few I'd donate to for the sake of more content like this. Can't wait for your future projects. If it's of any interest while I've read about the great game from both British and Russian perspectives from the Sikh, Kazak and Persian operations to the conclusion at the Anglo-Russian convention, feel like you could make a video with better research and production than any others out there. All the best, hope all is going well.

The British only fought with bows and today only fight at sea because they're terrified of having to fight anyone directly (like men); no wonder the modern-day British default war strategy (applied in both world wars) consists of hiding their tiny island while keeping an oversized navy to prevent anyone from landing there (thus avoid having to face the enemy) and the most important part which is to BEG the United States (Britain's historic boyfriend and current owner) to please come fight for them and save them. That's why they've made so much of the battle of Trafalgar when, in real-life, it had a little practical immediate effect and Napoleon barely sighed when receiving the news; but the British keep celebrating that victory because fighting on sea is all they can do, whenever they fight at land they get their sorry asses kicked even against "inferior" enemies such as Elphinstone's army in Afghanistan, Isandlwana, the American revolutionary war, Dunkirk, by the Jews at Palestine, the Dutch at Medway (after which the British lost their fleet which meant their island was open to invasion after which they panicked and surrendered ending the war in whatever terms (they could get no matter how unfavorable rather than fighting like men), Buenos Aires (twice) and Singapore, among many many others; and the only victories at sea they've scored have been by surprise attacks (such as the battle of the River Plate), ambushes (just like they did at the battle of Jutland or Cape Matapan) or by using overwhelming numbers (like they did with the Bismark: in the first encounter 2 German ships, including the Bismarck, fought against 3 British ships which included the most powerful British ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, known as "the pride of the Royal Navy" and the Bismarck alone defeated the 3 British ships and easily destroyed the HMS Prince of Wales, after which the British fled and only came back in overwhelming numbers, sending 12 ships against the Bismarck). That's why in Corunna they used their favorite tactic: be defeated and escape by sea (the same one used in Dunkirk); by the way, Wellington's only tactic consisted of hiding behind a hill and attacking only when the enemy lowered his guard while having an ally do most of the fighting; also explaining why during all of the wars between Britain and France the British only strategy consisted of conquering small irrelevant colonies with overwhelming forces which were their only direct victories. Also, they have no problem whatsoever betraying their allies to further its interests such as when they bombarded Copenhagen even though Denmark wasn't at war with Britain (they did this to destroy the Danish fleet so Napoleon couldn't use it to invade Britain if he conquered Denmark), or when the French surrendered in World War II after the British sent only a symbolic force (which achieved nothing and was defeated) and the British demanded the French hand over all of their ships to them (they were terrified that Hitler could use them to invade Britain) and when the French refused the British immediately forgot about their so-called "allies" and attacked the French fleet by surprise at Mers-el Kebir; and there's also the fact that the French surrendered because Churchill (supposed "tough guy") wrote them off and refused to send reinforcements, instead choosing to keep his forces in Britain in a sad attempt to deter an invasion and to improve his bargaining position during peace talks after the Germans won which he was sure would happen. Or when they betrayed the Portuguese (supposedly their oldest allies with whom they'd maintained an alliance treaty since 1386 although the Portuguese have never really seen any benefits while the British have) by sending them an ultimatum in 1890 demanding them to evacuate some of their African colonies and once they did they quickly moved to occupy these areas just so they could have a continuous land connection between South Africa and Egypt or during the Seven Years War: the British always seek a powerful ally with a powerful land army (as the British are too cowardly to fight like men) to protect them and fight for them and the United States didn't exist yet so they tricked Prussia into joining them and paid the Prussians to fight on the continent in their place but as soon as the British attained their goals in the other theaters of the war they immediately forgot about their Prussian "allies" and suddenly stopped the cash flow to Prussia and abandoned them just at the height of the war, leaving the Prussians to their own devices to fight alone against France, Austria and Russia, almost resulting in the destruction of Prussia, something every country in Europe took note of and is also why during the Circassian genocide when Russian captured the British ship Vixen (then delivering aid) the British loudly threatened war but backed down when they couldn't find any ally to do the actually fighting for them. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British were at their worst, paying others to fight for them, causing the Emperor of Austria to say "The English are flesh traffickers, they pay others to fight in their place", while Napoleon said the British were "a people of cowardly marine merchants". Here's a tiny selection of the countless British defeats: Afghans 6-13 January 1842 - retreat from Kabul - entire British army captured or killed (17,000 KIA) 3 September 1879 - Kabul ...again 27 July 1880 - Maiwand - 900-1,000 British/Indian troops killed By Mahdist March 13, 1884 - January 26, 1885 Siege of Khartoum - 7,000 force lost to Mahdis February 4, 1884 First Battle of El Teb Chinese 4 September 1839 Battle of Kowloon - defensive victory June 24-26, 1859 Second Battle of Taku Forts Russians Petropavlovsk - British landing repelled Battle of the Great Redan - British failure while the French do succeed in taking the Malakoff Balaclava - British lancers and hussars of the light brigade annihilated. Taganrog - failure of the Anglo-French contingent to take Taganrog Siege of Kars - Anglo Turkish force fails to take Kars Zulus Isandlwanna - an entire column wiped out. 1,400 killed Intombe - supply convoy wiped out. 104 dead Hlobane - No. 4 column wiped out. 225 killed Bulgarians Battle of Kosturino 1915 Battle of Doiran 1916 Battle of Doiran 1917 Battle of Doiran 1918 Argentinians 2 April 1982 - Invasion of the Falklands - 100+ Marines and sailors captured 3 April 1982 - Argentinians seize Leith Harbor. 22 Royal Marine POWs 10 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Sheffield 22 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Ardent 23 May 1982 - Battle of Seal Cove 24 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Antelope 25 May 1982 - SS Atlantic Conveyor sunk by Argentinians 25 May 1982 - HMS Coventry is sunk by Arg. aircraft. 29 May 1982 - Mount Kent Battle - 5 SAS dead in friendly fire incident. 6-7 June 1982 - British paratroops vacate position under pressure, leaving radio codes 8 June 1982 - Bluff Cove Air Attacks 10 June 1982 - Skirmish at Many Branch Point - capture of the SAS contingent. Ghurka victories January 1814 - Battle of Makwanpur Gadhi - British army kept at bay January 1814 - Battle of Jitgadh - British attack repulsed with 300 KIA Spring 1814 - Battle of Hariharpur Gadhi - British Indian army stymied. November 1814 - Battle of Nalapani - British force decimated with 700+ casualties December, 1814 - Battle of Jaithak - 53rd Div. defeated and repelled. Dutch 16 August 1652 - Battle of Plymouth - De Ruyter's triumph 30 November 1652 - Battle of Dungeness - Dutch gain control of the English Channel 4 March 1653 - Battle of Leghorn - 5 ships captured or sunk 2 August 1665 - Battle of Vågen 1-4 June 1666 - Four Days' Battle - 10 ships lost with upwards of 4,500 killed and wounded 2-5 September 1666 - Burning of London 9-14 June 1667 - Raid on Medway - Dutch raid, ends with loss of 13 English ships 28 May 1672 - Battle of Solebay 7 -14 June 1673 - Battle of Schooneveld August 21, 1673 - Battle of Texel Others - by the Albanians (the 78th Regiment of Foot at Rosetta), - by the Americans (at Cowpens, in 1813 at Thames, and in 1815 at New Orleans), - by the Poles (in 1810 at Fuengirola), - by the native Indians (at Monongahela), - by the Egyptians (1807 at El-Hamad or Hamaad) - by Native Americans at the first Roanoake Island Colony where they defeated the English colonists who had then had to be rescued by Francis Drake, fleeing by sea (the usual British tactic of fleeing by sea) Among many, many, others.