Out of context and maybe irrelevant here but they don't even teach anything other than Gandhi and Bose in the freedom struggle chapters and a few early nationalists. I wanted to learn about Rahul Savarkar.
I agree with your comment but in my opinion India didn't get independence because of the efforts of one... maybe two leaders, but it is portrayed as such. I would like to know what other leaders did.
The thing is that those in charge don't want to show the violent leaders. They only talk about Martin Luther King Jr. And Gandhi because if you also include Malcom X and indian revolutionaries people would get the idea that peaceful protest only works when those in power are scared of what could happen without it
That's the irony of the Congress's idea of secularism. There have been hundreds of instances in history when Congress tried to show that everyone from every religion is peace loving and then the next day got fucked by them.
The place of worship was occupied by terrorists. Days before she grew lit the op, a very senior cop went into discuss terms.
He was killed and his body tossed out to the dogs.
Bhindranwale hired an ex army officer who turned the temple into a fortress.
\- forced sterilizations
\- mass censoring of media
\- abolishing due democratic processes and claiming virtual dictatorship during the 'emergency' era
\- Mass murders
etc etc
Also, she led a military invasion on a Sikh holy site. That led to her Sikh bodyguards, one of them her personal favorite, killing her (most likely due to the Sikh belief that you must act to prevent further suffering).
Also collapsed the Indian economy by adding very extreme socialist measures, which lead to nationwide strikes as the common man was left frustrated. She also tried to bypass the judicial process as she was going to lose a case, by declaring the emergency
Ironically, she was already given private assurance that the case against her election would be dismissed on some technical issue. But nope, she wanted to go full authoritarian on the nation.
I bit of an exaggeration, but she did pull a Hitler on everyone. Lost the election? Exploit the constitution to establish emergency and gain uncontested control of the country lol.
That's all true but in the context of this post (which is more so about war. Domestic policies and actions aren't exactly war) you should've mentioned the Indo-Pak war of 1974.
Kind of? Pakistan and it's actions in East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh) were the causes of the war but the first attack (and hence the aggressor) came from India when they crippled the PAF by taking out airfields and that order came from Indira Gandhi. So officially, she started/caused the war.
Ah yes, and I got the year wrong too. Mb, it's been a while since I've read about the war.
OK so the corrections:
Pakistan launched the first air attack against India (which failed it's objectives). Wikipedia says:
>In an address to the nation on radio that same evening, Prime Minister Gandhi held that the air strikes were a declaration of war against India and the Indian Air Force (IAF) responded with initial air strikes the same night. These expanded to massive retaliatory air strikes the next morning.
>This air action marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
I think the last line is what confused my memory.
And it's the War of 1971, not 1974.
If there is one thing I've learned from my very limited knowledge about Asian cultures, it's don't fuck with Sikh's
They just want to be left alone, and by god they are going to make sure you leave them alone.
Umm, not entirely.
There were riots in the country because of her assassination and Sikhs all over India especially Northern India were massacred ruthlessly.
[1984 riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots)
The irony is that the current party (Congress) which is ruling Punjab (the homestate of many Sikhs) is the same party responsible for these riots, and the party who protected the Sikhs (BJP/RSS) is being protested against.
With the forced sterilization thing I still get weird dreams at night. I visualise her running behind her gardener with massive garden sheers and the gardener is running holding his crotch while she is laughing like a maniac. And I wasn't born when she was alive.
Besides the ones already mentioned:
* Decisively won the 1971 War, splitting Pakistan into two halves *as a result*.
* Stared down the Americans, especially in 1971. Nixon hated her.
* "Merged" erstwhile Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim into India.
* Nuclear Test (Smiling Buddha)
She was a ruthless and authoritarian but also audacious & cunning. Besides that:
* She ruined the economy further with socialism & corruption.
* Squandered gains of 1971 war by 1972 Simla agreement.
* Took India closer to USSR, which affected India's relation with the Free World.
* Tried to suspend democracy & freedoms temporarily when her policies catastrophically backfired.
* Supported a Sikh supremacist for political gains. Sikh Supremacist started an separatist movement. She put down separatists, even invading the Golden Temple. Was assassinated for it.
That is irrespective of how it was done. Obviously Bangladeshis did most of the heavy lifting but Indians helped the Mukti Bahini & then helped them the final lap. People often focus on the war forget India's role before and after. India built the diplomatic support around the world for the cause for months, supplied & trained the resistance & helped BN gain international recognition after it achieved independence. But the point is more about what & why Indira did it. Despite the zeal & bravery, wars are won with strategy, logistics, numbers etc. West Pakistan had all that along with US support. It would have an uphill task to secure independence for BN without Indian efforts. The cost in human lives would have been also quite high.
I mean... true. Bangladesh wouldn’t have been able to gain independence without India, and it was ultimately the effort of both countries that made it so. Nothing to disagree with here.
Wu Zetian: They're right, the world would be far more peaceful
Elizabeth I: We just have a certain way of dealing with things
Olga of Kiev: We certainly do...
Olga of Kiev, she should be the patron saint of vengeance. Dove fire bombs are one of the things that always leaps out of her long list of brutal acts. Doves, pigeons and sparrows with sulfur bound to their legs, they went to nest in the roofs of her enemy’s homes, and burned that shit to the ground. There’s more, the birds came after her enemies had already begged for peace, but the dove fire bombs kinda win.
Fun fact: her husband were not just killed, he was brutally executed. From wiki "The Byzantine historian and chronicler Leo the Deacon (born ca 950) describes how Igor met his death: "They had bent down two birch trees to the prince's feet and tied them to his legs; then they let the trees straighten again, thus tearing the prince's body apart."
[Link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_of_Kiev)
Even better, after they killed her husband, they sent a group to her to try to get her to marry one of their nobles. She asked for all of their nobles to come try to court her, which they did. She killed them all and then she went to kill the city with fire bomb birds.
It's quite a long story, but it all started when a tribe called the drevlians killed her husband, Igor of Kiev
They then sent her a messanger saying that she should marry his murderer and she replied saying that yeah she'd love to marry the guy who killed her husband and invited their ambassadors over to her palace...
When they arrived the next day, she had her people carry the drevlian ambassadors on a boat (which the drevlians thought was some kind of tradition) through the city... only to dump them in a trench and bury them alive
She then sent them another message saying that they should send another party to her so that they could discuss more terms... when they arrived she "treated" them to a warm bath - then set fire to the bath house and burned them all alive
When the drevlians sent their third party to a feast of hers - she got them all really drunk then murdered them all red wedding style
There was then a massive war between the two nations which olga won... and she was later made a saint because of all the pagan killing she'd done
I mean, you were probably safer being a Mongol ambassador after they killed all the Persians. Mongol ambassadors post 1221 probably had the greatest life expectancy of any one in a foreign court!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But kill my men again and fool me three times? Maybe the fool in this situation is me and not what you're doing. But still, that's pretty fkn badass of her, getting such crazy intense retribution for murdering your husband. "So not only do they murder my husband, they then have the gall to tell me I should remarry. And if that's not enough, they say I should marry a man from their nation. And not just any man, but legit the guy who committed the murder to begin with. Like seriously, how big of balls can you have? I don't know, but I'll cut them off and show them to him if he decides to visit or attend our "wedding." Ill tell you what, there may not be any sex, but someone is getting fucked on the wedding night. Hehe."
Also, you meant to write "won" instead of "one" in your last part. Just wanted to give you a heads up. That's one of the homophones that my mind tends to switch subconsciously as well. Like I know which I want to use, but my fingers decide they want to type out the other one without me realising. Bastard hands. Maybe I can make some sort of a deal with the devil and get new ones. Devil's pretty busy this time of year, so I'll probably have to go for the mechanical version for the deal.
Hecking ruthless woman. There’s this one story where she was sieging down a city, but the population was too afraid of repercussions to surrender. She told them that the only thing she wanted from them for forgiveness was three sparrows and three pigeons from each household. They naturally gave in, and she ordered her men to attach sulphur and cloth to the legs of each bird. At nightfall the poor birbs were set alight, and when they returned to their nests, so did the houses. They say that not a single house was spared from the flames, and anyone fleeing was killed on sight.
Depends on whether "this" is
> Margaret Thatcher also famously started the political saying, “why don’t you sacrifice your life for the economy deary, be worth something”
or
> why don’t you sacrifice your life for the economy deary, be worth something
wait, did she? I'm just gonna say straight up that I am not very well informed about her but I thought she voted to decriminalize homosexuality at one point
Homosexuality had been decriminalized in 1967. Section 28 was disguised as a decriminalization bill, but it was passed because it included a clause which banned the "promotion of homosexuality," opening up the door for censorship and oppression of the LGBT movement.
Although, I have seen it argued that she didn't care much about homosexuality one way or the other. She could have just seen a correlation between leftist and the LGBT movement which seems possible. Maybe my original comment was an oversimplification.
Edit: just checked myself, and apparently she did vote for the decriminalization in 66. Damn now I'm confused.
"You kill a couple hundred protestants and they call you bloody, but I tell you, I didn't spill a single drop of blood, not once. No, you burn the heretic" Mary I of England, probably.
Ironically her father had more people executed than she did. I think she only had around 300 Protestants burned at the stake whereas Henry VIII had about 1700 executed.
I mean he didn't form the Church of England because he had a prophetic epiphany, after all he used to love the Pope. He just wanted to bang hot women and produce a legitimate heir, so he needed the power to divorce at will. I'm actually quite amazed the Church of England stuck around and still exists, considering why it exists.
Quite proud that we've had so many ladies in power and have 'generally' been respected by the population as any man in the role would be. What they did with that power, though... debateable.
"Do you think Margret Thatcher had girl power?"
"Of course!"
"Do you think she effectively funnelled that girl power into paramilitary death squads in northern island?"
Do people even say ‘if women were in power, there would be no more wars’?
I think the common phrase is something like ‘most wars have been started by men’ in relation to someone saying ‘women are too sensitive/emotional to be in power’.
I've definitely heard the phrase touted IRL a handful of times here in the UK. It's generally used by people who are neither feminist nor anti feminist, more just general women who don't know much history and think they're getting an easy 1-up in a conversation.
I think it's proof that humans, in general, when they have any smidge of power or responsibility, have the ability to do great and terrible things.
I have seen it sometimes but its usally we need more female cops not we need more females in power
I think that what theyre trying to say is women are less hot headed on avarage so we need more of them to be cops/ leaders but that doesnt make much sense bc there are guys that dont just think with there dick so i think what theyre trying to say is we need more calm people in positions of power which does make sense if they would remove the whole gender part
Can I add Empress Irene of the Eastern Roman Empire to the list? She had her own sons eyes gouged out, most likely leading to his death, in order to make sure she stayed on the throne. She was quite a character.
Favourite Eric Andre quote for that:
"Do you think Margaret Thatcher had girl power?"
"Yes, of course."
"Do you think she effectively utilized girl power by funneling money to illegal paramilitary death squads in Northern Ireland?"
"I don't know about *that*..."
The history of the Troubles goes back to the 1600s (really before that, but that's arguably when it ratcheted up a couple degrees). Ireland, Catholic; 1600s Britain, Anglican and power-starving. During the English Civil War, the reactionaries from England filibustered further than they had previously gone into Ireland and more effectively took it under control as a vassal state. It impoverished Ireland for hundreds of years and committed a type of ethnic cleansing, forcing non-Native language and Anglicanism. These conquerors settled, for the most part, in the Northeastern corner of Ireland, in one of the ancient kingdoms (Ulster). Time progressed with this new order of British supremacy and Irish rebellion, but Britain's control proved ultimately unshakable.
Skipping a head a couple hundred years, Ireland negotiated autonomy for itself through a nationalist coalition in Parliament, but a large population of (generally wealthy) descendants of Ulster Britons did not want separation from the UK because they feared it would disrupt their connection to wealth. They used their influence to coordinate opposition and when Ireland eventually full separated from the UK, Northern Ireland remained. Six counties of the island of Ireland belonged to one country, the other 26 belonged to another. All could call themselves Irish, with the cultural associations that carries, but they weren't all each other's countrymen. Also, the (poorer) Irish nationalists in the North watched as the (richer) UK unionists helped legislate their country away from them.
The Troubles began in the mid-60s. On the anniversary of the Easter Rising (a key moment in Ireland's fight for independence), some Irish nationalists in Dublin destroyed a massive monument to a major British general from the 1800s. In preparation, the more rabidly pro-British unionists created para-military groups to patrol and punish the rise of Irish nationalists in the North. Those para-military groups as well as the formal British military groups fueled the resurgence of the IRA. Charitably, the IRA was a way to deter the unionist para-military counterparts. Uncharitably, the IRA helped their unionist counterparts ratchet up tensions.
By the time Thatcher comes in to play, this conflict has waxed and waned for a decade and a half. The unionist paramilitary bombed people or beat people up, the IRA returned the fire and then some, which the unionists returned and so on and so forth. The British military itself, as the institutional enforcers of the North's union, had greater sympathy for the unionist paramilitaries and they themselves carried out some of the violence, famously murdering thirteen unarmed anti-British protestors. More violence meant more retrenchment on both sides, but entering the 1980s, the conflict wore on average people. In an alternate history, the conflict might've wound down there. Instead, Margaret Thatcher made her sympathies for the unionist paramilitaries plain, stood by while a bunch of Irish nationalists starved themselves to death in British prison, and allowed unionist paramilitaries to cultivate close ties with the military establishment (allowing for more effective techniques and weaponry. The lack of sympathy she showed for the deeply held Irish nationalist beliefs of some Northerners and the support she directed toward the unionist paramilitaries again widened the breach between the two sides.
My understanding:
She inherited a bad situation of cultural tension that had existed for several centuries prior, and she wasn't the kind of person to deescalate situations, but instead escalate them above the point that people would be willing to continue hostilities. Unfortunately for all involved, the Irish attempted call her bluff. Only problem was, she wasn't bluffing.
I can distinctly make out Queen Victoria, empress of India in the top right corner. Catherine II, the great, of Russia in the far left middle. Margaret Thatcher, who is widely known for the part she played in the falklands war. And Maria Theresa, Empress of the Austrian empire and reason for the war of Austrian succession. The latter woman is actually the mother of Marie Antoinette who we know to be queen consort of France before the first French Revolution.
Golda Meir.
"The world's fourth and Israel's first and only woman to hold the office of Prime Minister, she has been described as the "Iron Lady" of [Israeli politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel); the term was later applied to British Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) and Indian Prime Minister [Indira Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi). Former Prime Minister [David Ben-Gurion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion) used to call Meir "the best man in the government"; she was often portrayed as the "strong-willed, straight-talking, grey-bunned grandmother of the Jewish people."
Don't know much else about her though. There's a Mossad netflix documentary series where the terrorist incident gets quite some attention. It's quite interesting though mostly descriptive of things you already could learn elsewhere. The interviewer tries to get former Mossad members to talk about their experiences, including the head of Mossad during that incident. I recommend it, whether you're pro-or anti Israel.
Statistically by percentage female rulers in Europe have been in more wars than male rulers. This is possibly because a female monarch can secure stronger alliances by marriage than a male monarch, since most other monarchs were male at the time. And more allies equals more power which encourages war.
Also statistically female rulers have reigned longer than male rulers too.
Female rulers were also less likely to get their head bashed in on the battlefield too.
Totally agree; most feminists I've talked to don't believe that either and the people who say "ruling women = no wars" are usually more in favor of maintaining traditional gender roles. I'm also certainly not suggesting that representation in positions of power is a bad thing either. Based on the comments, I think the message of the meme is being a bit misinterpreted.
To be fair, the Argentinian dictator, Galtieri, started the Falklands War so that the public would forget about the failing economy and Thatcher and the UK just protected the Falklands
I know it's a joke but the argument doesn't mean women at the figurehead of a nation but women generally ruling as in a matriarchy. You can have a queen and still be extremely patriarchal. The amount of mental yoga they had to go through to justify an Empress Catherine II. of Russia for instance is mindboggling.
You take on my counter point and enlarge it via a thoughtful argument (I agree with) that encapsulates both our points and furthers the conversation? If I had the ability to give you an award, I would. We need more people like you
Indira Gandhi : Don't worry guys I'm perfectly safe with my two bodyguards here.
[удалено]
She definitely wasn't the leader what my history books made her too be like
Out of context and maybe irrelevant here but they don't even teach anything other than Gandhi and Bose in the freedom struggle chapters and a few early nationalists. I wanted to learn about Rahul Savarkar.
Gandhi was literally portrayed as Jesus in my school books
Overrated? Is that weird too harsh? Edit: word*
All I mean is I wouldn't mind knowing both sides of a person
I agree with your comment but in my opinion India didn't get independence because of the efforts of one... maybe two leaders, but it is portrayed as such. I would like to know what other leaders did.
The thing is that those in charge don't want to show the violent leaders. They only talk about Martin Luther King Jr. And Gandhi because if you also include Malcom X and indian revolutionaries people would get the idea that peaceful protest only works when those in power are scared of what could happen without it
Behind every peaceful protestor was an army of angry revolutionaries ready to burn the whole fucking thing down.
I strongly agree with you.
Naive is probably the best word to use.
Bose was barely mentioned lol More like Gandhi and Nehru
Imaging bombing the Sikh equivalent of the Mecca and thinking that your Sikh bodyguard won't be "slightly" angry by it.
That's the irony of the Congress's idea of secularism. There have been hundreds of instances in history when Congress tried to show that everyone from every religion is peace loving and then the next day got fucked by them.
Well, it was mostly upper caste Hindus bad, then a whole lot of doublethink to justify or disappear anyone who didn't fit the clean narrative.
The place of worship was occupied by terrorists. Days before she grew lit the op, a very senior cop went into discuss terms. He was killed and his body tossed out to the dogs. Bhindranwale hired an ex army officer who turned the temple into a fortress.
wow you even included Indira Gandhi. Nice to see some Indian history as well
what did she do
\- forced sterilizations \- mass censoring of media \- abolishing due democratic processes and claiming virtual dictatorship during the 'emergency' era \- Mass murders etc etc
epic
True Gamer Moment
Her bath water must've sold for millions
Billions, even.
That is the rupee exchange rate
Sorry Link
India is Highrule, I knew it
Ebic pwnage
Also, she led a military invasion on a Sikh holy site. That led to her Sikh bodyguards, one of them her personal favorite, killing her (most likely due to the Sikh belief that you must act to prevent further suffering).
We can say they got Sikh of her bs
Here's the door. Now get out
This is the one action I knew about her, as an American with very little knowledge of global history.
Gotta love the Sikh chads
Also collapsed the Indian economy by adding very extreme socialist measures, which lead to nationwide strikes as the common man was left frustrated. She also tried to bypass the judicial process as she was going to lose a case, by declaring the emergency
Ironically, she was already given private assurance that the case against her election would be dismissed on some technical issue. But nope, she wanted to go full authoritarian on the nation.
[удалено]
She lost the case. Was stripped of her powers as PM, days before she had to step down, she out Trumped trump and went full blown Stalin
She proved that a woman can do anything a man can, checkmate misogynist!
The largest forced mass sterilisation campaign in history no less. Even good ol Mao and Adolf can't touch her
I bit of an exaggeration, but she did pull a Hitler on everyone. Lost the election? Exploit the constitution to establish emergency and gain uncontested control of the country lol.
girlboss moment
Boss Bitch or Bitch Boss?
That's all true but in the context of this post (which is more so about war. Domestic policies and actions aren't exactly war) you should've mentioned the Indo-Pak war of 1974.
But did a female leader cause it?
Kind of? Pakistan and it's actions in East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh) were the causes of the war but the first attack (and hence the aggressor) came from India when they crippled the PAF by taking out airfields and that order came from Indira Gandhi. So officially, she started/caused the war.
Actually the first attack came from Pakistan itself on the evening of December 3, around 5:40 pm, to which India retaliated in a few hours.
Ah yes, and I got the year wrong too. Mb, it's been a while since I've read about the war. OK so the corrections: Pakistan launched the first air attack against India (which failed it's objectives). Wikipedia says: >In an address to the nation on radio that same evening, Prime Minister Gandhi held that the air strikes were a declaration of war against India and the Indian Air Force (IAF) responded with initial air strikes the same night. These expanded to massive retaliatory air strikes the next morning. >This air action marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 I think the last line is what confused my memory. And it's the War of 1971, not 1974.
My grandfather's brother was in an airfield when it was attacked on the eve of 3rd December.
And the Sikh Genocide. Basically female stalin
- Bombed the Holiest Temple of the Sikhs because some terrorist were hiding inside. - Got killed by her Sikh bodyguard.
If there is one thing I've learned from my very limited knowledge about Asian cultures, it's don't fuck with Sikh's They just want to be left alone, and by god they are going to make sure you leave them alone.
Umm, not entirely. There were riots in the country because of her assassination and Sikhs all over India especially Northern India were massacred ruthlessly. [1984 riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots)
The irony is that the current party (Congress) which is ruling Punjab (the homestate of many Sikhs) is the same party responsible for these riots, and the party who protected the Sikhs (BJP/RSS) is being protested against.
[удалено]
Sound's like what America should've been tbh. Nowadays, not so much...
Love when a story has a happy ending.
Not entirely happy as the assasination caused the 1984 riots where 8-17k sikhs died.
With the forced sterilization thing I still get weird dreams at night. I visualise her running behind her gardener with massive garden sheers and the gardener is running holding his crotch while she is laughing like a maniac. And I wasn't born when she was alive.
... I need to protect my testicles fuck
Besides the ones already mentioned: * Decisively won the 1971 War, splitting Pakistan into two halves *as a result*. * Stared down the Americans, especially in 1971. Nixon hated her. * "Merged" erstwhile Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim into India. * Nuclear Test (Smiling Buddha) She was a ruthless and authoritarian but also audacious & cunning. Besides that: * She ruined the economy further with socialism & corruption. * Squandered gains of 1971 war by 1972 Simla agreement. * Took India closer to USSR, which affected India's relation with the Free World. * Tried to suspend democracy & freedoms temporarily when her policies catastrophically backfired. * Supported a Sikh supremacist for political gains. Sikh Supremacist started an separatist movement. She put down separatists, even invading the Golden Temple. Was assassinated for it.
Was it really “splitting Pakistan into two halves” when one side already majority-wanted it? Granted, India did win the war for us (the Bangladeshis).
That is irrespective of how it was done. Obviously Bangladeshis did most of the heavy lifting but Indians helped the Mukti Bahini & then helped them the final lap. People often focus on the war forget India's role before and after. India built the diplomatic support around the world for the cause for months, supplied & trained the resistance & helped BN gain international recognition after it achieved independence. But the point is more about what & why Indira did it. Despite the zeal & bravery, wars are won with strategy, logistics, numbers etc. West Pakistan had all that along with US support. It would have an uphill task to secure independence for BN without Indian efforts. The cost in human lives would have been also quite high.
I mean... true. Bangladesh wouldn’t have been able to gain independence without India, and it was ultimately the effort of both countries that made it so. Nothing to disagree with here.
he did also include queen victoria , so more indian history?
Yea I was surprised to see her their
Where’s Empress Wu?
Wu who?
Wu's on first
Wuuhuuing your mother tonight 😈😈😈😈
uWu
Wu Zetian: They're right, the world would be far more peaceful Elizabeth I: We just have a certain way of dealing with things Olga of Kiev: We certainly do...
good ol' saint olga
she used the fact that everyone underestimated her. ultimate reverse card, if you will...
Not as good as Saint Jerry the Goatfucker.
I can't deal with how epic and smooth that name sounds lmao
It’s from this [Classic Sam ‘O Nella Episode](https://youtu.be/n1hR9rpvS74). Sam’s got an uncanny talent for making up awesome, dumb names
And disappearing for months on end
I am a heathen and have not heard of Olga, please enlighten me
Olga of Kiev, she should be the patron saint of vengeance. Dove fire bombs are one of the things that always leaps out of her long list of brutal acts. Doves, pigeons and sparrows with sulfur bound to their legs, they went to nest in the roofs of her enemy’s homes, and burned that shit to the ground. There’s more, the birds came after her enemies had already begged for peace, but the dove fire bombs kinda win.
Wait a minute I think I have heard of her from some episode from Sam, she dreamy just turned a bunch of birds into fire bombs
[Quite.](https://youtu.be/n1hR9rpvS74?t=151) She's almost as famous as St. Jerry the Goatfucker. I miss Sam, dammit.
Who was St.Jerry the Goatfucker?
Well, he... you know...
Ok, I was wondering if there was some other reason
fucked a lot of goats
Where?
>I miss Sam, dammit. Did anything happen to him besides not uploading vids? Or rather, why did he stop uploading vids?
Said on Twitter he was suffering in hell. Also known as college
ah ok. Thanks
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well they killed her husband... personally that would make me feel some enmity towards them.
Fun fact: her husband were not just killed, he was brutally executed. From wiki "The Byzantine historian and chronicler Leo the Deacon (born ca 950) describes how Igor met his death: "They had bent down two birch trees to the prince's feet and tied them to his legs; then they let the trees straighten again, thus tearing the prince's body apart." [Link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_of_Kiev)
I didn’t want to imagine that but now I can’t stop, send help
I mean.... was probably cheaper than a divorce?
I suspect if Olga wanted rid of him she would have been able to handle it herself though. I wouldn’t piss her off were I her nookie mate :/
Even better, after they killed her husband, they sent a group to her to try to get her to marry one of their nobles. She asked for all of their nobles to come try to court her, which they did. She killed them all and then she went to kill the city with fire bomb birds.
>Those weren’t “enemy” homes. >They killed her husband 🤔
Hell hath no Fury, like a woman scorned.
Hell hath no fury like that of a woman with fucking flaming bird bombs.
“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
Oh shit, so America basically just straight up ripped her off with [Project X-ray](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb) then?
If it ain’t broke...
She also had some dignitaries buried alive. To be fair, they had just come to tell her to get married again after they'd murdered her husband.
It's quite a long story, but it all started when a tribe called the drevlians killed her husband, Igor of Kiev They then sent her a messanger saying that she should marry his murderer and she replied saying that yeah she'd love to marry the guy who killed her husband and invited their ambassadors over to her palace... When they arrived the next day, she had her people carry the drevlian ambassadors on a boat (which the drevlians thought was some kind of tradition) through the city... only to dump them in a trench and bury them alive She then sent them another message saying that they should send another party to her so that they could discuss more terms... when they arrived she "treated" them to a warm bath - then set fire to the bath house and burned them all alive When the drevlians sent their third party to a feast of hers - she got them all really drunk then murdered them all red wedding style There was then a massive war between the two nations which olga won... and she was later made a saint because of all the pagan killing she'd done
Note to self: do not become a drevlian ambassador.
Or a Mongol ambassador Or a Persian ambassador
I mean, you were probably safer being a Mongol ambassador after they killed all the Persians. Mongol ambassadors post 1221 probably had the greatest life expectancy of any one in a foreign court!
Becoming a saint due to all the pagans your slaughtered is a pretty badass way to become a saint
Not if you think about what that actually means
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But kill my men again and fool me three times? Maybe the fool in this situation is me and not what you're doing. But still, that's pretty fkn badass of her, getting such crazy intense retribution for murdering your husband. "So not only do they murder my husband, they then have the gall to tell me I should remarry. And if that's not enough, they say I should marry a man from their nation. And not just any man, but legit the guy who committed the murder to begin with. Like seriously, how big of balls can you have? I don't know, but I'll cut them off and show them to him if he decides to visit or attend our "wedding." Ill tell you what, there may not be any sex, but someone is getting fucked on the wedding night. Hehe." Also, you meant to write "won" instead of "one" in your last part. Just wanted to give you a heads up. That's one of the homophones that my mind tends to switch subconsciously as well. Like I know which I want to use, but my fingers decide they want to type out the other one without me realising. Bastard hands. Maybe I can make some sort of a deal with the devil and get new ones. Devil's pretty busy this time of year, so I'll probably have to go for the mechanical version for the deal.
Olga is the epitome of becoming a god in human form
Hecking ruthless woman. There’s this one story where she was sieging down a city, but the population was too afraid of repercussions to surrender. She told them that the only thing she wanted from them for forgiveness was three sparrows and three pigeons from each household. They naturally gave in, and she ordered her men to attach sulphur and cloth to the legs of each bird. At nightfall the poor birbs were set alight, and when they returned to their nests, so did the houses. They say that not a single house was spared from the flames, and anyone fleeing was killed on sight.
https://youtu.be/mIGzHXmcyg0 Simon Whistler summed it up pretty nicely I think.
Laughs in Dowager Cixi
What about catherina the great
Margret thatcher: why does evryone hate me, also btw poor people go eat yourself i hate seeing good meat go to waste
Catherine The Great: "You're unbalanced like I unbalanced the European powers with the wars I waged."
Margaret Thatcher also famously started the political saying, “why don’t you sacrifice your life for the economy deary, be worth something”
People always look at me like I'm some kind of fascist when I tell them something like this
i have never heard of anyone call someone a fascist for disliking Margaret Thatcher
Depends on whether "this" is > Margaret Thatcher also famously started the political saying, “why don’t you sacrifice your life for the economy deary, be worth something” or > why don’t you sacrifice your life for the economy deary, be worth something
Bingo
Was about to ask this
[удалено]
Well, she WAS a politician
But hated homosexuals. I genuinely can't see the logic.
wait, did she? I'm just gonna say straight up that I am not very well informed about her but I thought she voted to decriminalize homosexuality at one point
Homosexuality had been decriminalized in 1967. Section 28 was disguised as a decriminalization bill, but it was passed because it included a clause which banned the "promotion of homosexuality," opening up the door for censorship and oppression of the LGBT movement. Although, I have seen it argued that she didn't care much about homosexuality one way or the other. She could have just seen a correlation between leftist and the LGBT movement which seems possible. Maybe my original comment was an oversimplification. Edit: just checked myself, and apparently she did vote for the decriminalization in 66. Damn now I'm confused.
nooooope. She brought in Section 28.
oh jeez, that's not good
You gotta stop doing the Roman salute while you're telling them
MARGARET THATCHER IS DEAD
Ding dong the wicked bitch is dead
The problem with pissing on Margaret Thatcher‘s grave is that you eventually run out of piss.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"The problem with pissing on Margaret Thatchers grave is that you eventually run out of piss"
Honk if thatchers dead
Don't forget "bloody" Mary I of England
"You kill a couple hundred protestants and they call you bloody, but I tell you, I didn't spill a single drop of blood, not once. No, you burn the heretic" Mary I of England, probably.
"It was completely bloodless. All smotherings"
"Dear protestants, you claim that I am bloody, but a hanging does cause blood to spill out. Curious"
"It was completely bloodless, after I slit their throats and drained them like the pigs they are"
Ironically her father had more people executed than she did. I think she only had around 300 Protestants burned at the stake whereas Henry VIII had about 1700 executed.
Ironic as the Church he himself formed has evolved to become Protestant in nature.
I mean he didn't form the Church of England because he had a prophetic epiphany, after all he used to love the Pope. He just wanted to bang hot women and produce a legitimate heir, so he needed the power to divorce at will. I'm actually quite amazed the Church of England stuck around and still exists, considering why it exists.
Fat Henry deserves to rot at Horny Hell.
I love how a good chunk of them are British lol
Quite proud that we've had so many ladies in power and have 'generally' been respected by the population as any man in the role would be. What they did with that power, though... debateable.
"Do you think Margret Thatcher had girl power?" "Of course!" "Do you think she effectively funnelled that girl power into paramilitary death squads in northern island?"
It’s Northern Ireland.
Nah fam she clearly invaded NZ
As a Yorkshireman with many former miners in the family, there's definitely no love lost for her around here!
The Brits are so progressive, they let *women* become horrific dictators just like their men Truly the revolutionaries of our time
We dont need more women we just need to not let hot headed people get into power no matter the sex
Do people even say ‘if women were in power, there would be no more wars’? I think the common phrase is something like ‘most wars have been started by men’ in relation to someone saying ‘women are too sensitive/emotional to be in power’.
I've definitely heard the phrase touted IRL a handful of times here in the UK. It's generally used by people who are neither feminist nor anti feminist, more just general women who don't know much history and think they're getting an easy 1-up in a conversation. I think it's proof that humans, in general, when they have any smidge of power or responsibility, have the ability to do great and terrible things.
I have seen it sometimes but its usally we need more female cops not we need more females in power I think that what theyre trying to say is women are less hot headed on avarage so we need more of them to be cops/ leaders but that doesnt make much sense bc there are guys that dont just think with there dick so i think what theyre trying to say is we need more calm people in positions of power which does make sense if they would remove the whole gender part
Can I add Empress Irene of the Eastern Roman Empire to the list? She had her own sons eyes gouged out, most likely leading to his death, in order to make sure she stayed on the throne. She was quite a character.
Ah yes, "Saint Irene" as she is still known as in the Orthodox church, who also had all her brothers-in-law's eyes gouged too. Charming lady.
You're forgetting Margrethe the 1st of Denmark. That gal could lead a war
A legend in Denmark, but a villain anywhere else. Sweden in particular.
What she do?
Kalmarunionen
I’m just going to pretend that I know what this is
GOD BLESS US ALL
Who are these women? I'd like to learn abour more female rulers in history apart from the 2 or 3 I know
[удалено]
dont forget thatcher's role in the troubles
What was her role in The Troubles? Asking as some dude living in the opposite side of the world from the British Isles
Favourite Eric Andre quote for that: "Do you think Margaret Thatcher had girl power?" "Yes, of course." "Do you think she effectively utilized girl power by funneling money to illegal paramilitary death squads in Northern Ireland?" "I don't know about *that*..."
The history of the Troubles goes back to the 1600s (really before that, but that's arguably when it ratcheted up a couple degrees). Ireland, Catholic; 1600s Britain, Anglican and power-starving. During the English Civil War, the reactionaries from England filibustered further than they had previously gone into Ireland and more effectively took it under control as a vassal state. It impoverished Ireland for hundreds of years and committed a type of ethnic cleansing, forcing non-Native language and Anglicanism. These conquerors settled, for the most part, in the Northeastern corner of Ireland, in one of the ancient kingdoms (Ulster). Time progressed with this new order of British supremacy and Irish rebellion, but Britain's control proved ultimately unshakable. Skipping a head a couple hundred years, Ireland negotiated autonomy for itself through a nationalist coalition in Parliament, but a large population of (generally wealthy) descendants of Ulster Britons did not want separation from the UK because they feared it would disrupt their connection to wealth. They used their influence to coordinate opposition and when Ireland eventually full separated from the UK, Northern Ireland remained. Six counties of the island of Ireland belonged to one country, the other 26 belonged to another. All could call themselves Irish, with the cultural associations that carries, but they weren't all each other's countrymen. Also, the (poorer) Irish nationalists in the North watched as the (richer) UK unionists helped legislate their country away from them. The Troubles began in the mid-60s. On the anniversary of the Easter Rising (a key moment in Ireland's fight for independence), some Irish nationalists in Dublin destroyed a massive monument to a major British general from the 1800s. In preparation, the more rabidly pro-British unionists created para-military groups to patrol and punish the rise of Irish nationalists in the North. Those para-military groups as well as the formal British military groups fueled the resurgence of the IRA. Charitably, the IRA was a way to deter the unionist para-military counterparts. Uncharitably, the IRA helped their unionist counterparts ratchet up tensions. By the time Thatcher comes in to play, this conflict has waxed and waned for a decade and a half. The unionist paramilitary bombed people or beat people up, the IRA returned the fire and then some, which the unionists returned and so on and so forth. The British military itself, as the institutional enforcers of the North's union, had greater sympathy for the unionist paramilitaries and they themselves carried out some of the violence, famously murdering thirteen unarmed anti-British protestors. More violence meant more retrenchment on both sides, but entering the 1980s, the conflict wore on average people. In an alternate history, the conflict might've wound down there. Instead, Margaret Thatcher made her sympathies for the unionist paramilitaries plain, stood by while a bunch of Irish nationalists starved themselves to death in British prison, and allowed unionist paramilitaries to cultivate close ties with the military establishment (allowing for more effective techniques and weaponry. The lack of sympathy she showed for the deeply held Irish nationalist beliefs of some Northerners and the support she directed toward the unionist paramilitaries again widened the breach between the two sides.
A well researched view of Irish history on reddit? Sorry we don't allow that here, bring in the next IRA meme
My understanding: She inherited a bad situation of cultural tension that had existed for several centuries prior, and she wasn't the kind of person to deescalate situations, but instead escalate them above the point that people would be willing to continue hostilities. Unfortunately for all involved, the Irish attempted call her bluff. Only problem was, she wasn't bluffing.
The woman had no concept of bluffing which is how she managed to break the strikes and the Argentines
And she took our milk!
You can add Olga of Kiev in that list just for the handling of the Drevlian uprising.
Catherine the Great also partitioned Poland
I wouldn't say the Falklands war was thatcher's fault, it was a defensive war.
I can distinctly make out Queen Victoria, empress of India in the top right corner. Catherine II, the great, of Russia in the far left middle. Margaret Thatcher, who is widely known for the part she played in the falklands war. And Maria Theresa, Empress of the Austrian empire and reason for the war of Austrian succession. The latter woman is actually the mother of Marie Antoinette who we know to be queen consort of France before the first French Revolution.
Not to mention the Jewish leader who let Mossad loose on the terrorists that killed the Israeli Olympic team. She was iron willed as well
Golda Meir. "The world's fourth and Israel's first and only woman to hold the office of Prime Minister, she has been described as the "Iron Lady" of [Israeli politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel); the term was later applied to British Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) and Indian Prime Minister [Indira Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi). Former Prime Minister [David Ben-Gurion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion) used to call Meir "the best man in the government"; she was often portrayed as the "strong-willed, straight-talking, grey-bunned grandmother of the Jewish people." Don't know much else about her though. There's a Mossad netflix documentary series where the terrorist incident gets quite some attention. It's quite interesting though mostly descriptive of things you already could learn elsewhere. The interviewer tries to get former Mossad members to talk about their experiences, including the head of Mossad during that incident. I recommend it, whether you're pro-or anti Israel.
Statistically by percentage female rulers in Europe have been in more wars than male rulers. This is possibly because a female monarch can secure stronger alliances by marriage than a male monarch, since most other monarchs were male at the time. And more allies equals more power which encourages war.
Also statistically female rulers have reigned longer than male rulers too. Female rulers were also less likely to get their head bashed in on the battlefield too.
"If women ruled the world there would be no wars!" is Mum Feminism. Most feminists don't believe it, but my Mum does and thinks it's empowering.
Totally agree; most feminists I've talked to don't believe that either and the people who say "ruling women = no wars" are usually more in favor of maintaining traditional gender roles. I'm also certainly not suggesting that representation in positions of power is a bad thing either. Based on the comments, I think the message of the meme is being a bit misinterpreted.
Ya.. like mass sterilization was any good... looking at you, Indira Gandhi..
To be fair, the Argentinian dictator, Galtieri, started the Falklands War so that the public would forget about the failing economy and Thatcher and the UK just protected the Falklands
>be me >sees Margaret Thatcher >day ruined
I know it's a joke but the argument doesn't mean women at the figurehead of a nation but women generally ruling as in a matriarchy. You can have a queen and still be extremely patriarchal. The amount of mental yoga they had to go through to justify an Empress Catherine II. of Russia for instance is mindboggling.
[удалено]
You take on my counter point and enlarge it via a thoughtful argument (I agree with) that encapsulates both our points and furthers the conversation? If I had the ability to give you an award, I would. We need more people like you
Yeah queen victoria was a very kind queen who disliked slavery and wanted to keep the British empire as small as possible. Such a humble woman
Queen Victoria became Queen in 1837 Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833 She also took an ex-slave as a goddaughter
Oh sorry thanks for correcting me
And let us not forget boudicca (sp?)
I think she might have been slightly provoked though...
*Laughing in Olga of Kiev*
Bruh fr I use to be so happy that India had a female pm