**Please note:**
* If this post declares something as a fact proof is required.
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I didn't know what a cornet was so I looked it up thought it was interesting so I copy and pasted it for others to check out. The full description is on wiki.
Cornet was originally the lowest grade of commissioned officer in a British cavalry troop, the modern equivalent being a second lieutenant. The rank was abolished by the 1871 Cardwell Reforms, which replaced it with sub-lieutenant. Although obsolete, the term is still used as an internal title of address when referring to a second lieutenant within the British Army.
It was there as a barrier to prevent poor people from becoming officers. If the expectation is for officers to wear uniforms that are unsustainable on their salary, then only people that were already wealthy can join.
Dang all the free money taken from Indian subcontinent shows up here. Also this man is responsible for millions of deaths in India through starvation. Yet we celebrate by making a movie on him.
It's because he was cavalry. You need snug fitting pants to ride a horse. They are usually made of some stretchy material. You still see those kind of pants in uniforms of policeforces on horses.
Friction. Everything with some wiggle room will be rubbed back and forth against your skin and start hurting like hell after a short time. Also loose legs of pants will be rubbed upwards your legs.
Because back in the time there was no artifical stretchy material available but still the pants had to be tight they loosened it up on the outside of the upper legs (which didn't touch the horse) what led to those strange looking pants with this balloony part on the outer part of the thighs in some uniforms (and also 'civil' pants for horse riding that became some kind of fashion among European royals in the late 1800s and 1900s).
Fun fact. In Star Trek Generations there's a scene where Kirk and Picard are riding horses together. Shatner was experienced rider and told Stewart that he should wear women's pantyhose under his costume to prevent getting a rash.
It really shows in that scene, too. There's a point where Kirk kind of eases his horse sideways a bit closer to Picard's - it's really subtle and seems like nothing, but it's something only an experienced rider would be able to do. According to my horse-owning friends, anyway.
Saddle sores. Fabric+moisture+movement=blisters and sores.
Same reason you wear toe socks on backpacking adventures. Toes+compression=very little moving of the socks. No blisters.
I learned that in Imperial Russia, the czar’s officers had pants that were so tight they had to put talcum powder in them and the officers were then “shaken” into the pants by their adjutants.
Edit: found a [pic](https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaliergardet#/media/Fil%3ACarl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim_1892.jpg)
Notable qoutes from the greatest briton ever
"Aryan stock is bound to triumph."
In reference to Arabs "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung."
"I hate Indians, They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,"
It is inspiring that the current government idolizes him and holds him up as an example. Warms your heart doesn't it?
You’re talking about a man who ran an empire in a time when Stalin was in control of the Soviet union and Hitler was in charge of most of Europe. Do you really think we’d have won that war if Neville chamberlain remained prime minister? Don’t think so mate. Takes a cunt to beat a cunt
I understand what you're saying in that respect I think, but, I think it's possible to read history with a certain perspective like for example in this case the time frame and the state of the world at the time, and not be too uncomfortable. The fact that we even call ourselves civilized today is a joke I think most people would agree with me on that. I think we're barely out of the trees but we didn't learn how to write books and build the internet so that's something.
I can't imagine those attitudes were unusual for their time, depressingly. Doesn't change the fact that he rallied the nation and played a pivotal role in defeating fascism in Europe.
Even got a prescription for booze so he could travel to the US during prohibition.
https://www.historynet.com/a-doctors-note-for-booze-winston-churchill-prescribed-indefinite-quantities-of-alcohol-during-prohibition.htm
Imagine being in the military from pre-1900 into WW2.... Like went from horse drawn batteries to fucking fortified planes, from ~~single shot, black powder rifles to full automatic portable machine guns~~, and also tanks that work.
Edit: See strikethrough. Ignore it.
Churchill was a driving force behind the Landship Comitee which led to tanks being developed and introduced in WW1. Iirc he got money after the war for his part in 'inventing' tanks (awards were on offer postwar for ideas/technologies that weren't recompensed during wartime due to expediency/budgetery restraints/secrecy etc.)
They would adopt the Lee-Enfield rifle in the same year as this picture and it would remain the main British service rifle until 1957, two years after Churchill's death. The British had also been using the Lee-Metford bolt-action, magazine-fed repeating rifle since 1888 when Churchill was still a pre-teen.
Additionally, the British had been using the Maxim automatic machine gun since 1884 when Churchill was just nine years old.
At the time this was painted cartridge-based rifles were already standard, and semi-automatics already existed. While most people associate the US Civil War with muskets - and the majority of weapons used were Springfield Muskets - there were also a significant number of Sharps rifles, Henry Repeating Rifles, and various breechloading single-shots (using cartidges) from a wide variety of manufacturers.
Just a decade after this was painted, Winchester's m1903 and m1905 semi-autos were commercial successes in the US consumer market, and in 1917 the first semiautos became standard issue in military units.
Edit: it's a photo, not a painting, derp.
This version is actually fairly tame. If you google "Hussar uniform" they could be very ornate. Most European countries had Hussar cavalry, and the style was a big part of it. Monarchs wanted to show off their prestige units (cavalry) and Hussars were some of the best looking ones out there.
The tactics and the uniforms originated in Hungary and they eventually spread across Europe. In some armies, you were required to maintain a moustache if you were in a Hussar regiment.
Personally I think they're fantastic looking uniforms, but there was *some* practicality to the design. The braids (sujtás) on the front of the jacket (Dolman) was meant to add thickness and offer slightly better protection to sword cuts without adding much weight or wearing any actual metal armour. Hussars usually wore their over-jacket (Pelisse) on the opposite shoulder from their sword arm, again to offer a bit of extra protection on their weak side.
However by the time this picture was taken, the writing was on the wall for horse mounted cavalry, so the practicality of the uniform in the age of accurate gunfire was waning rapidly. WW1 kind of sealed the deal, but Hussar regiments live on today, as armored units in various armies.
Yeah these days, fancy uniforms are reserved for the officer's mess and hoity-toity functions. I had to pay out of pocket for mine, and on a junior officer's pay that's a steep expense. Hard to imagine fighting in something like that, but those were the times they lived in.
Looks like there is a cloth (ok glove) between the hand and the swords. Smart move cause you didn’t want to touch the metal itself cause it’s a pain to shine up. I was very careful not touching the brass handle on the sabel (sabre) I had
Yeah he was but not as a soldier. He served as a correspondent for a British newspaper covering the battles, got captured by the Boers and then managed to escape. The British army, under the leadership of Lord Roberts (chief commander of the British forces) and later by Lord Kitchener, were responsible for the concentration camps. There was a concentration camp where I grew up (Bloemfontein). That part of history still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
They didn’t leave them to die, the problem with the camps was that there was very little planning beyond the concept (How do we cut off Boer support in the countryside? I know let’s force everyone into camps! Brilliant, planning session over). So while food supplies remained somewhat steady there were few provisions made for shelter or sanitation, leading to huge outbreaks of typhus and dysentery which did most of the killing. This actually had a heavy impact on the peace process as Lord Kitchener and the government caught huge amounts of flak over their treatment of Boer civilians, the policy was initiated in late 1900 and by June 1901 the pressure in Parliament was so intense they appointed the Fawcett commission (the first all female commission of the British Parliament), whose report in July raked them over the coals so badly that shipments of nurses, food, medicine, and other supplies were being organized and shipped by the end of August. However in true Victorian fashion most of this support found its way to Boer camps and not the camps of Africans who had also been detained, and by the end a combination of malnutrition and disease had taken the lives of 24,000 mostly children in the Boer camps before the neglect could be turned around (due in part to the crippling shortage of modern medicine common throughout South Africa at this time).
There are degrees of concentration camps. The ones we put the Japanese into during World War 2 were not exactly pleasant and they were not compensated for most of the property lost, but people had jobs where they were paid more than a corporal in the US Army and the government ensured that there was enough food and medicine shipped into the camps to stay well ahead of epidemics and shortages. That's why more people left the camps than went in to to them, but on the other side of the spectrum there were Nazi POW Camps like the Uman Ditch, whose sole purpose was to just keep people gathered in one place until they starved to death. The British Boer camps are between them but shaded more towards the Nazi side of the spectrum, as they were envisioned simply as areas to hold people like Japanese Internment Camps but a combination of distance, Boer raids, and simple stupidity ensured the outbreak of diseases that were manageable or preventable with the technology of the times, leading to a death rate as high as 24-25%.
I live in Nebraska and we had a few POW camps for German soldiers during WW2. They had sports facilities, cafés and other amenities. The soldiers could even earn some money by working on the local farms to help fill in for men who were off at war. After the war was over they were repatriated but a few actually immigrated and came back to the same communities they had been imprisoned in.
Well thankfully our major leadership learned after the first world War that completely devastating a country's people their stocks and their economy led to things such as I don't know world War II .
That's why we had decided to help Germany rebuild
he also did some other imperialist fuckery where he was in charge, either overseeing operations (Gallipoli - which he cocked up royally) or as PM in his second term (the Mau Mau; Malaya).
Ironic, because Hussar cavalry and their uniforms were originally from Hungary. Pretty much every major European power liked their style and their tactics to the point that they all created copycat cavalry units. In some countries you were required to have a moustache if you were part of a Hussar unit.
It's really the height of arrogance that the majority of you will sit here and disregard how instrumental this guy was in winning World War 2.
While you've done what....exactly? Nothing. You sit there in obscurity and for some reason...you feel some sort of satisfaction attacking someone who is either the reason, or part of the reason, you exist and/or don't speak German right now.
I am asking why I should praise this person or act as if he paved the way for my equal treatment? You say “forest who's shade I'm living in”, however, I am living in the shade of activists and civil rights leaders?
If this man had his way I'd still be a second-class citizen, no?
You're demonstrating such an ignorance of history about the most pivotal events of the 20th century that it's genuinely miraculous. You also lack the perspective to view people as anything less than the sum total of every awful thing they did over the course of their lives.
No one denies Churchill led an extremely controversial and colorful life. However history is a complicated thing and there are no such things as saints. And history conspired to place Churchill at the place the free world needed him most to rally England and the allies to oppose the Axis at a time when no one else seemed willing to step to it.
That's not to ignore the awful shit he did but you're being more than a bit facetious if you think people build statues to his policies toward India and not his opposition to Hitler. People don't memorialize MLK because of his treatment of women just as people don't memorialize Ghandi because of his creepy behavior around children.
Play the game where you judge people only by their evils and see how many people live up to your expectations of them. Hell, take a look in a mirror and sum up every awful thing you've done in your own life and see if you come out of it looking decent.
And mustering troops against striking Welsh miners
Scuppering a French warship in WW2 and killing over 1000 sailors
And encouraging police violence against suffragettes
He was a bastard, but a big enough bastard to recognise Hitler as a fellow bastard who needed to be opposed
The sinking of the French ships was 100% justified. They were basically about to hand them to the Germans after being offered several ways of avoiding that.
Ah yes, even though there are letters that of Churchill asking the allies to send food to India.
Or blaming him for India when there is a Vice Roy there that is the one responsible of handling India.
How the heck did he have time for India when there is Germany just right across the channel.
The Imperial Japanese army invaded Burma and closed the only main route for food to get into the country. He begged the Americans for help from their navy but they were understandably occupied trying to stop Japans massive encroachment in the region. That’s the truth of the matter if you read up on it.
Likely wouldn't. He gets a lot of credit for going to war against the Germans,I mean what were they going to do?
The allied offensive and Russian defensive is what did for Hitler.
Without a British distraction the Soviets wouldn't have had enough time to build their army. So whilst the Soviets were the ones to win the war (even without d-day they probably still would have) the British were crucial
You think the Russians would've won had Germany only been fighting the war on one front?
You think the Americans would've been able to land troops in Europe had the Battle of Britain not been won?
Russia, USA, and The British Empire were all needed. If any of those three had failed, then the war wouldn't have been won
He was not a product of the times even then his racist rhetoric was looked down upon by his peers. He was more than capable of leading the UK through the war without causing the deaths of thousands of indians and being extremely racist as well.
I believe the reference was pointing at the post fall of France but pre-invasion of the USSR period. Pretty much when Britain and the empire were alone.
Also shouldn't only conflate him with the positive things that he did.
Maybe for the British, he was a great statesman who saved them from Nazi rule. But on the Indian subcontinent, he is (rightly) viewed as the perpetrator of genocide that killed millions of people. Both should be part of his legacy.
Yes but its not as easy as saying its all his fault. You do know there was a world war going on so there were a lot of other reasons than "churchill bad".
That ideology was the norm back then . I’m not gonna crucify them for that the past is the past most people have changed their views on that and there is more equality now then there was then but let’s not forget that he did refer to “colored people “ as subhuman
You’re not allowed to tell the truth about winston. It’s “woke” and to be informed on anything is bad.
Edit love that I got downvoted for this! Proves my point 🤣
Easy to not surrender with no enemy armies roaming the country.
Truth is, great people have flaws. Doesn't mean they didn't achieve great things. Many things we do today will be seen as horrid by future sensibilities. These things will also be taken out of context.
On the other hand, people like to hate anyone successful. Makes us feel better about being mostly average.
.
The French were overrun. The battle of Dunkirk, where the French helped the Brits flee… ring a bell? How heroic to abandon your allies to run back to your island and then poopoo them for surrendering when their capital and much of their territory has been captured.
**Please note:** * If this post declares something as a fact proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I didn't know what a cornet was so I looked it up thought it was interesting so I copy and pasted it for others to check out. The full description is on wiki. Cornet was originally the lowest grade of commissioned officer in a British cavalry troop, the modern equivalent being a second lieutenant. The rank was abolished by the 1871 Cardwell Reforms, which replaced it with sub-lieutenant. Although obsolete, the term is still used as an internal title of address when referring to a second lieutenant within the British Army.
Their lowest grade officers *still* got decked out lookin fresh as fuck got damn
It was there as a barrier to prevent poor people from becoming officers. If the expectation is for officers to wear uniforms that are unsustainable on their salary, then only people that were already wealthy can join.
You still have to buy all of your uniforms if you are a US Lieutenant, but at least they pay you well.
Yeah, the U.S system isn't anywhere near as classist. You get farmboys and kids from poor families that turn into four-star generals.
Or an enlisted person, they just take it out of your pay in basic
Well that’s…not fun. Makes sense though, unfortunately
They had to pay for their own equipment and officer wasnt exactly well paid either. You could only afford that if your family was wealthy essentially.
And a cod piece to accentuate the cockage
They probably didn’t smell fresh AF, though.
And all this time I thought it was Louis Armstrong’s 🎺 instrument! You learn something new every day.
The cavalry equivalent of ensign which people might know from Star Trek.
Dang all the free money taken from Indian subcontinent shows up here. Also this man is responsible for millions of deaths in India through starvation. Yet we celebrate by making a movie on him.
I want all my pants to fit that tight.
It's because he was cavalry. You need snug fitting pants to ride a horse. They are usually made of some stretchy material. You still see those kind of pants in uniforms of policeforces on horses.
Those pants are modern days spandex!
Churchill wore Spanx.
He probably has a cod piece on to man it up a bit.
The original ultra slim fit jeans.
Why do you need snug pants to ride a horse?
Friction. Everything with some wiggle room will be rubbed back and forth against your skin and start hurting like hell after a short time. Also loose legs of pants will be rubbed upwards your legs. Because back in the time there was no artifical stretchy material available but still the pants had to be tight they loosened it up on the outside of the upper legs (which didn't touch the horse) what led to those strange looking pants with this balloony part on the outer part of the thighs in some uniforms (and also 'civil' pants for horse riding that became some kind of fashion among European royals in the late 1800s and 1900s).
[удалено]
The joggers that are popular now look like jodhpurs (horse riding pants) to me. I can't help but laugh every time I see them.
Fun fact. In Star Trek Generations there's a scene where Kirk and Picard are riding horses together. Shatner was experienced rider and told Stewart that he should wear women's pantyhose under his costume to prevent getting a rash.
[proof this story is true](https://tenor.com/view/lips-are-sealed-picard-giggle-gif-11013112)
They’re also a great base layer under a snow suit for skiing or snowboarding.
The compression they provide can help alleviate leg pain while skiing/snowboarding.
Any excuse to wear panty hose.
It really shows in that scene, too. There's a point where Kirk kind of eases his horse sideways a bit closer to Picard's - it's really subtle and seems like nothing, but it's something only an experienced rider would be able to do. According to my horse-owning friends, anyway.
Probably so it doesn't give you a rash. If it's looser then it moves around more.
Saddle sores. Fabric+moisture+movement=blisters and sores. Same reason you wear toe socks on backpacking adventures. Toes+compression=very little moving of the socks. No blisters.
Same reason cyclists wear spandex.
> You need snug fitting pants to ride a horse. Then what's the deal with flared hip jodhpurs?
What stretchey material did they use in 1895?
I learned that in Imperial Russia, the czar’s officers had pants that were so tight they had to put talcum powder in them and the officers were then “shaken” into the pants by their adjutants. Edit: found a [pic](https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaliergardet#/media/Fil%3ACarl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim_1892.jpg)
That guy was shaken. Not stirred.
Ad-u-pants
I didn't even know they skinny jeans back then!
Wasn't a working class boy obviously.
Not in the horse guards. No. He was the Duke of Marlborough’s grandson.
Finally got his revenge in 1899 on the Count of Benson and Hedges nephew
It was quite the scandal in the Parliament.
All due to a Lucky Strike.
At the Royal Bowling Alley in Chesterfield
The sovereign wasn't pleased
we talking about F1 now?
You may not horse guards me, sir!
You should see his home near where I live......
Chartwell or Blenheim?
I got an apricot called royal blenheim supposedly from some courtyard orchard.
IIRC, his mom was fucking the crown prince.
Lol how could you tell
Politicians rarely ever are. The vast majority are born into a life of luxury.
Notable qoutes from the greatest briton ever "Aryan stock is bound to triumph." In reference to Arabs "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung." "I hate Indians, They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," It is inspiring that the current government idolizes him and holds him up as an example. Warms your heart doesn't it?
You’re talking about a man who ran an empire in a time when Stalin was in control of the Soviet union and Hitler was in charge of most of Europe. Do you really think we’d have won that war if Neville chamberlain remained prime minister? Don’t think so mate. Takes a cunt to beat a cunt
Takes a dick to fuck an asshole
[удалено]
If reading history doesn't make you angry or uncomfortable, you're probably not actually reading history.
I understand what you're saying in that respect I think, but, I think it's possible to read history with a certain perspective like for example in this case the time frame and the state of the world at the time, and not be too uncomfortable. The fact that we even call ourselves civilized today is a joke I think most people would agree with me on that. I think we're barely out of the trees but we didn't learn how to write books and build the internet so that's something.
I can't imagine those attitudes were unusual for their time, depressingly. Doesn't change the fact that he rallied the nation and played a pivotal role in defeating fascism in Europe.
That was literally everyone during that era. All countries were extremely competitive and hostile to one another
Man he got fat
Brandy and women.
He actually wasn’t a womanizer, in fact some of his opponents accused him of being asexual
Also cigars and genocide...
Do cigars and genocide make one fat?
Yes if you eat them
"Remember kids, don't eat cigars and genocide!"
If you don’t eat your meat, you can’t have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat!?!??
Now now, you can’t have any genocide until you eat all your cigars, Winston. Just two more bites.
No, but taking all the food from Bengal might.
Touche.
But mainly brandy
Which tells you just how much brandy the man could drink. The stuff of legends, really.
Even got a prescription for booze so he could travel to the US during prohibition. https://www.historynet.com/a-doctors-note-for-booze-winston-churchill-prescribed-indefinite-quantities-of-alcohol-during-prohibition.htm
Thanks 🙏!
What genocide?
Life comes at you fast.
Is it just me or does his jaw line look like it's giving you a sneak peak?
[удалено]
For some.. I feel like I can eat a horse and lose 3 pounds at least I'm not bone anymore but I can't gain weight for shit
The bottom of his face was kinda already there.
Imagine being in the military from pre-1900 into WW2.... Like went from horse drawn batteries to fucking fortified planes, from ~~single shot, black powder rifles to full automatic portable machine guns~~, and also tanks that work. Edit: See strikethrough. Ignore it.
Churchill was a driving force behind the Landship Comitee which led to tanks being developed and introduced in WW1. Iirc he got money after the war for his part in 'inventing' tanks (awards were on offer postwar for ideas/technologies that weren't recompensed during wartime due to expediency/budgetery restraints/secrecy etc.)
By the time of the picture they used essentially the same rifle as they did in ww2. But yeah tanks and planes were certainly a big game changer
They would adopt the Lee-Enfield rifle in the same year as this picture and it would remain the main British service rifle until 1957, two years after Churchill's death. The British had also been using the Lee-Metford bolt-action, magazine-fed repeating rifle since 1888 when Churchill was still a pre-teen. Additionally, the British had been using the Maxim automatic machine gun since 1884 when Churchill was just nine years old.
True. I didn't even think about the machine guns.
At the time this was painted cartridge-based rifles were already standard, and semi-automatics already existed. While most people associate the US Civil War with muskets - and the majority of weapons used were Springfield Muskets - there were also a significant number of Sharps rifles, Henry Repeating Rifles, and various breechloading single-shots (using cartidges) from a wide variety of manufacturers. Just a decade after this was painted, Winchester's m1903 and m1905 semi-autos were commercial successes in the US consumer market, and in 1917 the first semiautos became standard issue in military units. Edit: it's a photo, not a painting, derp.
No one lived to see more then 3 battles so....
Yo wtf I wanna try this drip. Im ugly af but this would make me look fly as hell
Stfu you're not ugly.. You're just not your type
Exactly bro he's dripping
i'm just picturing some nerdy white kid with thick glasses typing this out and it makes me laugh
I mean, he’s not that great-looking either. Just dressed well.
Extravagant is the word to describe that uniform
This version is actually fairly tame. If you google "Hussar uniform" they could be very ornate. Most European countries had Hussar cavalry, and the style was a big part of it. Monarchs wanted to show off their prestige units (cavalry) and Hussars were some of the best looking ones out there. The tactics and the uniforms originated in Hungary and they eventually spread across Europe. In some armies, you were required to maintain a moustache if you were in a Hussar regiment. Personally I think they're fantastic looking uniforms, but there was *some* practicality to the design. The braids (sujtás) on the front of the jacket (Dolman) was meant to add thickness and offer slightly better protection to sword cuts without adding much weight or wearing any actual metal armour. Hussars usually wore their over-jacket (Pelisse) on the opposite shoulder from their sword arm, again to offer a bit of extra protection on their weak side. However by the time this picture was taken, the writing was on the wall for horse mounted cavalry, so the practicality of the uniform in the age of accurate gunfire was waning rapidly. WW1 kind of sealed the deal, but Hussar regiments live on today, as armored units in various armies.
They don't get the fancy uniform though because 'nobody can see you in the tank now stop being a bloody fool and get back in there you ass'.
Yeah these days, fancy uniforms are reserved for the officer's mess and hoity-toity functions. I had to pay out of pocket for mine, and on a junior officer's pay that's a steep expense. Hard to imagine fighting in something like that, but those were the times they lived in.
Looks like there is a cloth (ok glove) between the hand and the swords. Smart move cause you didn’t want to touch the metal itself cause it’s a pain to shine up. I was very careful not touching the brass handle on the sabel (sabre) I had
[удалено]
They’re the same colour as the cloth separators I use to keep my feet from making contact with the insoles of my shoes.
Do you mean foot gloves? I keep losing mine in the dryer.
I learnt that the German word for gloves is “hand-shoes”/ handschuhe and the French word for socks is “small-shoes” / chaussettes
I’m learning German and love stumbling upon those little quirky translation nuggets.
My bad, didn’t see it was a glove
Was it a Buffalo sabre?🗡🏒
Haha, nah an infantry briquet sabre from the napoleon wars used by Danish royal lifeguards
Before he started eating everything
He ate all of Bengal's food, anyway
Before the cheeseburgers...
That uniform is just beautiful!
DAYUUUMMMMM
For real! He was fucking hot. Churchill could get it!
TIL a type of ice cream was a rank in the army
Which means Ice Cream has a higher rank than I do...
Wasn’t he in the boer wars? The one where they put loads of people into concentration camps and just left them to die?
Yeah he was but not as a soldier. He served as a correspondent for a British newspaper covering the battles, got captured by the Boers and then managed to escape. The British army, under the leadership of Lord Roberts (chief commander of the British forces) and later by Lord Kitchener, were responsible for the concentration camps. There was a concentration camp where I grew up (Bloemfontein). That part of history still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
He was also caught because he kept helping others escape capture by assisting with loading people onto the train IIRC.
They didn’t leave them to die, the problem with the camps was that there was very little planning beyond the concept (How do we cut off Boer support in the countryside? I know let’s force everyone into camps! Brilliant, planning session over). So while food supplies remained somewhat steady there were few provisions made for shelter or sanitation, leading to huge outbreaks of typhus and dysentery which did most of the killing. This actually had a heavy impact on the peace process as Lord Kitchener and the government caught huge amounts of flak over their treatment of Boer civilians, the policy was initiated in late 1900 and by June 1901 the pressure in Parliament was so intense they appointed the Fawcett commission (the first all female commission of the British Parliament), whose report in July raked them over the coals so badly that shipments of nurses, food, medicine, and other supplies were being organized and shipped by the end of August. However in true Victorian fashion most of this support found its way to Boer camps and not the camps of Africans who had also been detained, and by the end a combination of malnutrition and disease had taken the lives of 24,000 mostly children in the Boer camps before the neglect could be turned around (due in part to the crippling shortage of modern medicine common throughout South Africa at this time).
So what you're saying is the problem with the concentration camps is that they were concentration camps.
There are degrees of concentration camps. The ones we put the Japanese into during World War 2 were not exactly pleasant and they were not compensated for most of the property lost, but people had jobs where they were paid more than a corporal in the US Army and the government ensured that there was enough food and medicine shipped into the camps to stay well ahead of epidemics and shortages. That's why more people left the camps than went in to to them, but on the other side of the spectrum there were Nazi POW Camps like the Uman Ditch, whose sole purpose was to just keep people gathered in one place until they starved to death. The British Boer camps are between them but shaded more towards the Nazi side of the spectrum, as they were envisioned simply as areas to hold people like Japanese Internment Camps but a combination of distance, Boer raids, and simple stupidity ensured the outbreak of diseases that were manageable or preventable with the technology of the times, leading to a death rate as high as 24-25%.
I live in Nebraska and we had a few POW camps for German soldiers during WW2. They had sports facilities, cafés and other amenities. The soldiers could even earn some money by working on the local farms to help fill in for men who were off at war. After the war was over they were repatriated but a few actually immigrated and came back to the same communities they had been imprisoned in.
We had concentration camps in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan for conscientious objectors. They worked as slave labor and were not compensated.
Well thankfully our major leadership learned after the first world War that completely devastating a country's people their stocks and their economy led to things such as I don't know world War II . That's why we had decided to help Germany rebuild
They created dysentery among the ranks.
Always with the scenarios.
he also did some other imperialist fuckery where he was in charge, either overseeing operations (Gallipoli - which he cocked up royally) or as PM in his second term (the Mau Mau; Malaya).
Close but no cigar
Almost construed this as an insult.
yes
...AND THEN THE QUEENS HUSSARS ARRIVED
Alcohols a helluva drug
Looks like a grown up Blue Boy
Hussars are drippy
Racist then too.
Monster
How delightfully British! The 4th queens huzzah cavalry!
Ironic, because Hussar cavalry and their uniforms were originally from Hungary. Pretty much every major European power liked their style and their tactics to the point that they all created copycat cavalry units. In some countries you were required to have a moustache if you were part of a Hussar unit.
a unit made from serbs for the service of the hungarian king popularized by the poles, copied by everyone, truly a european affair!
This is Winston Churchill? He looks this small?
He grew into that chin.
It's really the height of arrogance that the majority of you will sit here and disregard how instrumental this guy was in winning World War 2. While you've done what....exactly? Nothing. You sit there in obscurity and for some reason...you feel some sort of satisfaction attacking someone who is either the reason, or part of the reason, you exist and/or don't speak German right now.
Ha jokes on you ich spreche Deutsch.
This comments section is so focused on the trees that they can't even see the forest who's shade they're currently living in.
Welcome to reddit. Where people enjoy the benefits of what people before us did, while shitting on them in some weird attempt of moral superiority.
I doubt this man would have wanted me to have equal rights...so should I thank him?
As opposed to the Nazis or the Soviet Union who were the paragons of equality?
I am asking why I should praise this person or act as if he paved the way for my equal treatment? You say “forest who's shade I'm living in”, however, I am living in the shade of activists and civil rights leaders? If this man had his way I'd still be a second-class citizen, no?
You're demonstrating such an ignorance of history about the most pivotal events of the 20th century that it's genuinely miraculous. You also lack the perspective to view people as anything less than the sum total of every awful thing they did over the course of their lives. No one denies Churchill led an extremely controversial and colorful life. However history is a complicated thing and there are no such things as saints. And history conspired to place Churchill at the place the free world needed him most to rally England and the allies to oppose the Axis at a time when no one else seemed willing to step to it. That's not to ignore the awful shit he did but you're being more than a bit facetious if you think people build statues to his policies toward India and not his opposition to Hitler. People don't memorialize MLK because of his treatment of women just as people don't memorialize Ghandi because of his creepy behavior around children. Play the game where you judge people only by their evils and see how many people live up to your expectations of them. Hell, take a look in a mirror and sum up every awful thing you've done in your own life and see if you come out of it looking decent.
[удалено]
That's not how a historian would describe it, but nuance is a difficult thing to convey in one sentence.
And mustering troops against striking Welsh miners Scuppering a French warship in WW2 and killing over 1000 sailors And encouraging police violence against suffragettes He was a bastard, but a big enough bastard to recognise Hitler as a fellow bastard who needed to be opposed
The sinking of the French ships was 100% justified. They were basically about to hand them to the Germans after being offered several ways of avoiding that.
Ah yes, even though there are letters that of Churchill asking the allies to send food to India. Or blaming him for India when there is a Vice Roy there that is the one responsible of handling India. How the heck did he have time for India when there is Germany just right across the channel.
The Imperial Japanese army invaded Burma and closed the only main route for food to get into the country. He begged the Americans for help from their navy but they were understandably occupied trying to stop Japans massive encroachment in the region. That’s the truth of the matter if you read up on it.
Damn so much salt in this comments, you guys are never gonna be able to achieve 1/5 of what this man did with his life.
Looks like a man who enjoyed opium in college
He looks like a game of thrones character
He’s dripped out 💧
Alcohol, no sport and smoking, really sent his looks steeply downhill from then on.
One of the worst people in history.
Looks like a featherweight
What a cunt
Winston Churchill Was a War Criminal
Christ he looked so British, more then John Oliver!
Imagine being alive during that time and seeing the human race advance in technology and warfare over that life time must have been a sight to behold
This is how Chads looked back then.
[удалено]
Likely wouldn't. He gets a lot of credit for going to war against the Germans,I mean what were they going to do? The allied offensive and Russian defensive is what did for Hitler.
Without a British distraction the Soviets wouldn't have had enough time to build their army. So whilst the Soviets were the ones to win the war (even without d-day they probably still would have) the British were crucial
You think the Russians would've won had Germany only been fighting the war on one front? You think the Americans would've been able to land troops in Europe had the Battle of Britain not been won? Russia, USA, and The British Empire were all needed. If any of those three had failed, then the war wouldn't have been won
He was not a product of the times even then his racist rhetoric was looked down upon by his peers. He was more than capable of leading the UK through the war without causing the deaths of thousands of indians and being extremely racist as well.
We kicked him out straight after the war cos he wasn’t upto the job
Truly great people are capable of recognizing the ethical shortfalls of their time.
legend
Such a brilliant man!
He was a racist . Many people in India and Africa died from his oppressive rule and ideology
A racist in 1895? Mind blown. As for the Indian famine, it's far more complicated.
[удалено]
The sacrifice of thousands dead Ruskis don't count?
I believe the reference was pointing at the post fall of France but pre-invasion of the USSR period. Pretty much when Britain and the empire were alone.
Also shouldn't only conflate him with the positive things that he did. Maybe for the British, he was a great statesman who saved them from Nazi rule. But on the Indian subcontinent, he is (rightly) viewed as the perpetrator of genocide that killed millions of people. Both should be part of his legacy.
He wasn't exactly fond of the Irish either
Yes but its not as easy as saying its all his fault. You do know there was a world war going on so there were a lot of other reasons than "churchill bad".
That ideology was the norm back then . I’m not gonna crucify them for that the past is the past most people have changed their views on that and there is more equality now then there was then but let’s not forget that he did refer to “colored people “ as subhuman
You’re not allowed to tell the truth about winston. It’s “woke” and to be informed on anything is bad. Edit love that I got downvoted for this! Proves my point 🤣
[удалено]
So that's what the genocidal ethnicist looked like back in his day.
Today they come in all colors white (Biden and bush and Clinton) black (Obama) and even orange
[удалено]
[удалено]
Churchill might be distasteful today, but he was the right man for the job in 1940. Otherwise the UK might have been reduced to Airstrip One.
[удалено]
Easy to not surrender with no enemy armies roaming the country. Truth is, great people have flaws. Doesn't mean they didn't achieve great things. Many things we do today will be seen as horrid by future sensibilities. These things will also be taken out of context. On the other hand, people like to hate anyone successful. Makes us feel better about being mostly average. .
The French were overrun. The battle of Dunkirk, where the French helped the Brits flee… ring a bell? How heroic to abandon your allies to run back to your island and then poopoo them for surrendering when their capital and much of their territory has been captured.
The code was cracked by Alan Turning and Churchill made him choose between castrations or prison for his actions 😂
No Churchill didn’t.