Why are sailors always so active in revolutionary movements?

Attached: 5fe4855aa93c3e9a15f1fecb03c087f1.jpg (515x693, 45K)

huh?

Attached: 315.jpg (670x510, 65K)

Ships have generally been more democratic than societies they were parts of. Also tend to have history of grievances and agitations where are more successful than those of peasants.

Because it is a microcosm of society. The captain's decisions affect everyone locked in the same tin can with him, if he decides to gamble with their lives and suicide charge the entire British navy the insanity of it is all the more palpable.

Sailors spend a lot of time at sea, often away from women. This deprivation turns many sialors gay. Drunken BDSM gay orgies were a common fixture among 19th and 20th century fleets.

>when Winston was at the Admiralty, the Board objected to some suggestion of his on the grounds that it would not be in accord with naval tradition. ‘Naval tradition? Naval tradition?’ said Winston. ‘Monstrous. Nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash.’

Winston Churchill.

Then, as today, faggotry eventually leads into a worse problem: Leftism. And leftists are just the corona for Marx*st revolutionary activity.

>faggotry eventually leads into a worse problem: Leftism.
If you didn't deny them their boypussy privileges it wouldn't be a problem.

I enjoyed this post

They generally have it worse. They usually have the same food problems and overbearing authority problems an oppressed population has, but with the added bonus of being cooped up in a coffin they can't escape. And if you're stuck in a harbor, you're doing nothing but busywork with military discipline while again being stuck in a coffin. That's why you see so many naval mutinies even in the 20th century. If you've got a poorly-run navy (like the Imperial Russian Navy or the High Seas Fleet near the end of WW1), it's like sticking a revolutionary populace in a pressure cooker. The question isn't if they'll mutiny, but when.

I wasn't aware that they were? But if so, I would say that it's probably culture shock opening up the mind to new ideas and societal structures through firsthand experience, especially shore leave halfway across the world. Nothing before commercial airlines became widespread would give you that type of world experience unless you were a mariner.

Fucking kek!

/thread

Honestly, this...
Because sailors are on a fairly small ship, where conditions are generally shared among the crew and the officers, you end up with trained leaders who are more sympathetic to the feelings and opinions of their men. This leads to the men being more independent, partially because they can, but also because court martial doesn't work well en mass at sea. So when the crew act in bulk, little can stop them. The British solved this with Marines (A seperate, well equipped military class on ship, supporting the officers) at first, and then prestige of the Navy.

Things are a lot more final for a naval sailor, an infantryman might be on the frontline for 9 months with nary a thing happening, but a sailor only is for a day and it's a do or die moment

Class divide between noble Officer mess and peasant NCM/NCO mess was clear cut

There is quite a bit of similarity between 17th-19th century sailing and slavery. Sailors often felt a strong connection and empathy for oppressed peoples because life underway was extremely harsh and draconian. We studied this a bit in maritime history. Pretty interesting stuff.

So why artists too?

The experience with a microcosm of society theory sounds like it explains both.

Tell me more.

People in cramped filthy conditions with little to do. No women, only alcohol. Really brutal discipline to try and keep them in line.

I would have called you a /pol/fag.
But this post absolutely laughably true.

Attached: 1469564194803.jpg (288x333, 35K)

Conditions on board ship were often worse than on land hence more disgruntlement and tendency to rebel.

I knew Churchill was gay

this but unironically

Not always. The Royal Navy remained mostly loyal to the king during the English Civil War.

>Watches Battleship Potemkin once

>implying it was wrong
>implying the conditions didn't say largely the same through 1917
>implying the HSF hadn't also gotten that bad by 1918
>implying naval mutinies aren't vastly more common than army mutinies

add this to the list of reasons /pol/ should be nuked

>Ships have generally been more democratic than societies they were parts of
>Because sailors are on a fairly small ship, where conditions are generally shared among the crew and the officers, you end up with trained leaders who are more sympathetic to the feelings and opinions of their men

Holy fuck the LARP fest is real, you shits have no idea what you're talking about.
>Sailors spend a lot of time at sea, often away from women.
It's not gay if it's underway.

Best post ITT

Attached: 1517221684842.jpg (413x395, 17K)

> The Royal Navy remained mostly loyal to the king during the English Civil War.
wtf am i reading? the navy sided with parliament from the very beginning of the war. part of it would defect later but still..

>ROYAL Navy
>BRITISH Army

The Royal Family never forgets.

are you memeing cause i'm not following. parliament seized the "royal navy" in the beginning of the english civil war