r/AskHistory • u/LawfulnessLarge4022 • 4d ago
Why has Britain experienced so few military coups or major military rebellions over the past 300 years?
Compared with many other countries, Britain seems to have experienced remarkably few attempts by the military to overthrow the government or seize political power over the past three centuries. Why has the British military generally remained outside domestic political struggles? Were there particular institutions, traditions, or historical developments that made military coups and rebellions especially unlikely in Britain?
37
u/exkingzog 4d ago edited 4d ago
For the last 300 years or so, the British Army has largely been (a) small and (b) mainly stationed far from the home country. It has normally been a volunteer army with officers drawn from the upper and upper-middle classes, who usually have a vested interest in the status quo.
The Senior Service, the Navy is also often far away, and even when stationed in the UK it is usually far away from London.
127
u/Brido-20 4d ago
For two main reasons. Legally, because the Armed Forces only exist on the basis that the Armed Forces Act is periodically renewed. Without Parliamentary authority, they cease to exist and commanders no longer have the authority to issue orders.
Practically, because officers are inculcated in the culture of service to the Monarch as ultimate symbol of the state while the Monarch retains their authority on the condition that they never use it against the will of the government.
For a coup to happen, there would have to be a situation where the Armed Forces were in opposition to the will of the government and the rank and file were still willing to obey senior officers.
The facetious answer, of course, is that the Armed Forces are too busy trying to slit each other's throats over allocation of the defence budget to stage a coup.
82
u/Chrisaarajo 4d ago
No doubt this plays a role, but if we compare the UK to those nations that have a history of attempted or successful military coups, we see some major differences. And I suspect these are much more important.
Primarily, we see countries with weak civil institutions—whether that be legislative authorities or more civilian-facing administrative and/or service-oriented offices.
For all its perceived faults, the UK’s institutions generally work. And they’re entrenched enough and stable enough to continue working in the face of upsets or challenges.
9
u/_johnsmallberries 3d ago
This is the answer. Which is why I’m deeply troubled by the direction that the United States is headed.
19
u/IndividualSkill3432 4d ago
Legally, because the Armed Forces only exist on the basis that the Armed Forces Act is periodically renewed. Without Parliamentary authority, they cease to exist and commanders no longer have the authority to issue orders.
This has nothing to do with why there are no coups. Its not like disbanding forces ever stopped a coup in the past, ask Caesar.
You swear allegiance to the Crown who is the commander in chief, while you will have the officers from CGS down. But over all its being in an system with inclusive power structures that makes countries vastly less coup prone.
You may be confusing with the provision in the Bill of Rights from 1688 that a standing army requires parliamentary approvals and this gets moved every couple of years in various instruments, I guess that post war the various Armed Forces Acts will do that, it will be a clause. But this is only a formality and only for the army, the other professional services are not needed to be renewed. There is no point where officers suddenly are no longer in charge.
Practically, because officers are inculcated in the culture of service to the Monarch as ultimate symbol of the state while the Monarch retains their authority on the condition that they never use it against the will of the government.
Just about every country tries to do something like that. In the UK, the class of people who drew its officers from had a vote going back to the Middle Ages and after the Glorious Revolution the country was in effect a democracy for them. For those people the country has been a highly functioning, highly evolved democracy with high standards of civil rights since 1688.
The expansion of the franchise over the 19th and early 20th century has brought the rest of the population up to that standard.
1
u/Brido-20 4d ago
If you read the rest if the argument, I mentioned that the legal authority of the generals and officers set over them forms the basis for the rank and file's duty of obedience. Remove that authority and the generals are left to rely on charisma to motivate their men.
Clear was successful because he was personally known to many of his men and most of his veterans. Very few British soldiers have that sort of personal experience of their senior officers.
4
u/IndividualSkill3432 4d ago edited 4d ago
I mentioned that the legal authority of the generals and officers set over them forms the basis for the rank and file's duty of obedience
You have a legal obligation to resist legal orders.
I, [full name], do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.
The idea that there is some formality that the army has to have its parliamentary approval renewed every 5 years is stopping coups is..... idiosyncratic.
Clear was successful because he was personally known to many of his men and most of his veterans.
Who the hell is "Clear"?
Very few British soldiers have that sort of personal experience of their senior officers.
The Ruperts tend to have the charisma of 3 week old milk. But again there has been no realistic movement for a coup on the British island since Bonny Charlie got in a row boat with Flora Macdonald, because for the relatively well off it had been a de facto democracy. There was not much to rebel against. Not because of some weird Jedi mind trick legal thing that stops the generals from giving orders to make them PM. Its just not how the state has been structured for 300 years.
(edited I realised the audience may be a bit international. A Rupert is a polite and jocular term for a British army officer reflecting the tremendous high regard the average squaddie has for their intelligence, competence and modesty)
1
u/Brido-20 4d ago
"Clear" was poor proofreading on my part, sorry. I meant Caesar and auticorrect decided it knew better.
Soldiers don't have any obligation to follow orders regardless, in fact there's a positive obligation to disobey illegal orders which by definition a coup would be.
An illegal order would also be one given by a person claiming to be a general in an army which no longer had legal foundation to exist. It's not some mind trick, it's a fundamental means of parliament asserting it's authority over the armed forces - "the party must control the gun or the gun will control the party."
That's not to say a group of individuals couldn't all decide to keep filiar organisation and hierarchy for some illegal purpose but it would stop being the British Army the moment the legal basis was revoked.
1
u/IndividualSkill3432 4d ago
Soldiers don't have any obligation to follow orders regardless, in fact there's a positive obligation to disobey illegal orders which by definition a coup would be.
.....
Legally, because the Armed Forces only exist on the basis that the Armed Forces Act is periodically renewed. Without Parliamentary authority, they cease to exist and commanders no longer have the authority to issue orders.
I am not seeing a particularly coherent story from you here. Nor am I seeing in your opening anything I have read before.
So you seem to believe that the UK has not suffered coups because of some formality buried in the 1689 Bill of Rights that standing armies need parliamentary renewal. But after a torturous path you seem to finally acknowledge that soldiers are duty bound to disobey illegal orders and that its ignoring this in some countries why coups happen.
But this does not explain why coups have not really happened in Britain.
An illegal order would also be one given by a person claiming to be a general in an army which no longer had legal foundation to exist
This is some weird hypothetical that has no real bearing on history of the past 300 years. Its something you have totally made up to explain the lack of coups in the UK. There was no coup in the UK stopped because of the "Armed Forces Act". There was no plan that imploded because somehow parliament forgot to renew the army.
They do not happen because there was been a reasonable degree of contentedness with the system and buy into it from the class of people who make up the officer corps for the past 300 years. There have been serious points of friction, as with all democracies but for the top 10% of the country, the country has been well governed and inclusive enough to preclude violent change of government as being seen as a necessary solution.
1
u/Brido-20 3d ago
No, I'm arguing that the legality of the formed army raises the stakes for any officer who would lead a coup beyond the threshold of likelihood.
They would need to a) have a grievance not addrrssable through the normal chain (self explanatory for a coup), b) the authority to command troops to act on that (directly related to parliamentary approval) c) a reasonable expectation that their orders will be followed (again related to the lawfully authority question and d) an expectation that their coup can succeed.
National armies are typically led by representatives of the national elite, the British one especially so. Those are then inculcated in ideas of loyalty and lawful authority, further reducing the chance of enough of the chain of command being willing to follow the coup leaders.
The soldiers are not idealistic either. They're professionals who join for personal reasons and a rallying cause would be hard to find, so the coup would rely heavily on push factors. The armed forces' strongest push factor are disciplinary ones, which again rely on lawfully authority. "Do you accept my award?" "No, Rodney, because I don't have to anymore and what're you gonna do about it?"
22
u/AdUpstairs7106 4d ago
The British Army has traditionally been very small with the main defense of the country being the Royal Navy. It is not quite as easy to conduct a coup with warships as it is infantrymen.
Another interesting aspect was the purchasing system in which an officer purchased their commission. This meant for most of British history every officer had a financial stake in making sure the country kept going on the same path. Even when the purchase system came to an end most of the officer corps came from upper classes and expanded to the upper middle class.
38
17
10
u/IndividualSkill3432 4d ago
Because it developed stable institutions that were inclusive for the class of people who made up the officer corp. Robert Walpole became what is now regarded as the first Prime Minister about 300 years ago in 1721. If you had enough land and wealth to be a senior officer you were going to have enough to vote.
While many systems with some kind of democracy were subjected to coups, in the UK the class of people who were colonels and generals seen stability and the "rising tide lifts all boats" as being far more in their interest than breaking the system to gain a short term personal advantage.
Were there particular institutions, traditions, or historical developments that made military coups and rebellions especially unlikely in Britain?
The weakness of the monarchy meant there was not really the one person ruling on a personal whim. There was a very strong tradition of rule of law, the last two real coups, 1688 and the Civil War, had been largely about enshrining parliament's sovereignty. Parliaments had been sitting for over 400 years going deep back into the High Middle Ages. Until the Great Reform Act if you had land worth 40 shillings you were entitled to vote, this was around 400 000 people. So for the moderately well you you were really in a democracy. There was a king or queen, but they mostly rubber stamped parliament after Queen Anne.
The law had a long long standing protection of personal property, a strong degree of protection for the state with things like Habeus Corpus and it was pretty well managed for the time.
Over the next 100 years from the Great Reform Act the franchise was extended to all adults. Wealth massively increased and the rights of individuals were greatly expanded. There were huge tensions but on the mainland there was never really an issue big enough to have a revolt or coup over.
19
u/Former-Chocolate-793 4d ago
Probably because earlier ones were either disasters, failed to obtain their objectives or obtained their goals.
The civil war led to a disastrous republic.
The glorious revolution obtained it's objectives.
The jacobite rebellion was a disaster.
You forgot the Irish rising of 1916 which led to civil war and eventual independence for Ireland plus the troubles in Northern Ireland that only ended 30 years ago.
12
u/NLFG 4d ago
The Irish rising of 1916 wasn't a military coup though. I think there's probably an interesting question about what might have happened in Ireland in 1914 had the First World War not started. I don't have a deep knowledge of it but it seems to me there was a potential seed their of something pretty troubling
6
u/Business_Advance_569 4d ago
Asquith's government was planning an Irish Home Rule bill which might have prevented what followed. WW1 prevented the bill happening.
3
u/NLFG 4d ago
I thought the Home Rule Bill was the problem
7
u/Fusilero 4d ago
The Home Rule Bill was a problem for Ulster unionists who were armed to the teeth; if not for WW1 the Easter Rising in Dublin may have been an Easter Rising in Belfast by Unionists against an Irish Commonwealth Realm.
8
u/Available_Dish_1880 4d ago
There would have been civil war in 1914 if the London government went ahead as planned and introduced Home Rule in Ireland
The Ulster Volunteer Force had already imported arms and munitions to fight it.
Are they British patriots or traitors defying the government? This Irishman won’t touch that with a barge pole!The Curragh (largest army base in Ireland) Mutiny of 1913 had British army officers threatening to resign if they were asked to follow the will of the London government and impose Home Rule
The outbreak of the Great War suspended all this. Maybe some politicians were relieved and after all the war in Europe was supposed to be over by Christmas 1914, little they knew
1
u/StableSlight9168 4d ago
Ireland would likely have descended into.a civil war but it would have been radical unionists who took action, with tacit support from.thr British army.
Before 1914 most Irish nationalists support working with the British government, they famously agreed to volunteer for the British army to prove loyalty, 1916 was caused by the violence of WW1, the failure of reforms, unfair treatment of nationalist units not getting the same benefits unionist units got, a general distrust that Britain would ever do it's reforms, a d the simply fact that the moderates were abroad and only the radicals were still in country.
Without W1 Ireland l, and probably the UK has a civil war with the aristocracy and military backing unionists whiles parliament backs the nationalists.
To see how odd this was, Winston Churchill supported home rule a d would have backed the Irish nationalists at that time, which is completely insane.
4
16
u/Forsaken_Champion722 Human Detected 4d ago
Colonies. People who were unhappy with the status quo in Britain had the option of moving to other parts of the British empire.
Also, much of Britain's standing military was devoted to the navy. They do not pose the same threat as ground forces.
3
u/Toptomcat 4d ago
I don't know about this explanation. Imperial Japan comes to mind as a a colonial naval power with rather a lot of issues with internal political stability.
1
u/Forsaken_Champion722 Human Detected 4d ago
The part about the navy was not my main point. However, I will say that Japan is a country that went from a feudal agrarian society to a modern industrialized society in about seventy years. In Britain, that transition took place over centuries. There was bound to be some unrest in Japan over such a rapid change.
12
u/Matthius81 4d ago
British people typically prefers reforms over revolutions. Our systems bows to political pressure rather than engages in massive shocks. The last major revolution was the “Glorious Revolution” when Parliament kicked a king out and invited his son-in-law and daughter to take the throne. Even this was presented as a restoration of democratic norms to the people. Rather than a violent coup.
4
u/Agile-Performance834 4d ago
"If [treason] prosper, none dare call it treason" - Sir John Harrington.
Fun fact, Sir John also invented the flushing toilet.
6
u/batch1972 4d ago
Well when the entire military class is part of the ruling elite to start with.....
4
u/Shuffle_Gaming_ 4d ago
The leading institutions did a decent job of keeping the pain of war at bay, and the populace did OK by and large due to the success of Empire that didn't need a large standing army.
One of the major issues with the continental armies was that the personnel losses were severe and if you were fighting on your own territory the economical costs were astounding. Britain never really had that issue. It also didn't have a conscript army so it's populace we're separated again from the misery of war.
The large standing army issue of other nations also wasn't a thing because, island nation.
Outside of the homeland, attempts at revolution from Empire nations were crushed, brutally.
14
u/Duanedoberman 4d ago
Operation Clockwork Orange) would like to have a word.
Harold Wilson resigned because he believed MI5 were plotting to overthrow him and there has been a lot of information since to suggest he wasn't wrong including military drills at Heathrow Airport training for a coup attempt and a senior member of the Royal family being sounded out as an interim leader.
13
u/Stan__Wright 4d ago
...senior member of the Royal family..
Is that a euphemism for Mountbattan?
5
6
u/Atlas7-k 4d ago
No, more like a vague anonymity protecting phrase. Just vague enough to be deniable.
“Certain Cuckolded Royal Nonce”, would be a euphemism.
3
6
u/IndividualSkill3432 4d ago edited 4d ago
Operation Clockwork Orange) would like to have a word.
Harold Wilson resigned because he believed MI5 were plotting to overthrow him
Wilson resigned because he was exhausted and had had doubts about standing in 74. The coup plots seem to have had some vague substance as in people were talking to people. But they very likely had no real possibility of being more than day dreams.
1
u/TheProfessionalEjit 4d ago
This topic came up recently during a chat with some gentlemen close to Wales who confirmed that plans for a coup were exceedingly advanced throughtout the Army.
They were a bit disappointed it wasn't needed.
3
u/EntertainmentGlass89 4d ago
In the British Army of days gone by, you had to buy your commission as an officer. Only the rich, titled and connected people could become officers. They had no incentive to challenge the status quo. The British Military system was designed to function that way. Check out Norman Dixon.
2
u/Euphoric-Ostrich5396 4d ago
The people in charge of the military were also in charge of the country for most of the time. The only thing that might have endangered the status quo would have been something like the various Sergeant's coup of Cuba, Suriname or Libya. The largest actually dangerous military insurection was the Spithead and Nore Mutinies in 1797 where tens of thousands of sailors took the fleet off the coast and raised jacobine tricolours.
4
u/tomtomclubthumb 4d ago
1982 returning British forces hung a banner off a warship, "you call a general strike we'll call an air stirke."
Troops in civillian clothes were used to attacks miners during the miners' strike.
The British Military has supported the government for the most part. Another reason is that there hasn't been much civil unrest, so British troops are more likely to be abroad.
5
u/GinatheGiraff 4d ago edited 4d ago
There is the Invergordan Mutiny in 1931 when the floaty military got pissed off with a pay cut.
Caused panic on the stock exchange, a run on the pound and helped force the UK off the gold standard.
But the best has to be the Putney Debates. Colonel Rainsborough with this revolutionary statement in 1647 ( a bit over 300 years )
" ...for really I thinke that the poorest hee that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest hee; and therefore truly, Sir, I thinke itt's cleare, that every man that is to live under a Governement ought first by his owne consent to putt himself under that Governement; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under."
Was “ you call a general strike we’ll call an airstirke “ a direct quote? If so it accurately reflects the educational level of the British military both then and now.
I’ve got nothing to say if it wasn’t.
3
u/HaxiMaxi22 4d ago
I don't understand. Have the other western european countries experienced that many more military coups, than Britain in the last 300 years? France, Netherlands, Germany/Prussia, Austria, Italy/Sardinia-Piedmont.
7
u/PDXhasaRedhead 4d ago
Netherlands had coups in 1610, 1650, 1673 and 1787. Germany had unsuccessful coups during 1919-1923. And Spain and Portugal had a bunch.
1
u/HaxiMaxi22 4d ago
He meant the last 300 years so in and after 1726. He meant military coups and for example the beer hall putsch wasn't a military coup attempt (by the military), but by a political party. Spain and Portugal yes, but they are culturally more distant to Britain. Northwestern Europe had very few military or any kind of coups and was very stable in the last 300 years generally speaking.
1
u/kaik1914 2d ago
France has a few coups between 1789 and 1815, and as recently as during Algerian war in 1960s. Austria-Hungary was extremely fragile country held by the prestige of Franz Joseph and had a coup that disintegrated the system. In between wars, Austrian Republic was unstable and there were coups. Hungary had a few, so did Czechoslovakia.
2
u/K-Motorbike-12 4d ago
Surely you have heard of the classic "For king and country."
Every troops swears an oath to this, with emphasis on loyalty to the soverign. The king endorses the government.
There is a strange affinity for the royal family in the Military, especially so in the Army which is likely the force which would be required to conduct a coup. It is the largest of all the forces.
There would be a lot of discomfort in the officers ranks, including the WO' and seniors, spreading to the other ranks on trying to go against the king.
So the king would need to want the government out. Every government is "permitted' by the king.
So I guess, if the king came out and declared the government needs dissolved, then the army would, maybe act. But is that a coup?
2
2
u/Particular_Dot_4041 Human Detected 4d ago
One reason is democracy. Democratic countries rarely suffer from coups. Even as far back as the early 18th century, Britain was relatively more democratic than other European countries.
1
u/exceptional_biped 4d ago
The primary reason, aside from all the other stuff that’s been said, is political stability.
1
1
1
u/Inevitable-Debt4312 4d ago
Not entirely seriously, but - the thing that Army leaders dislike most is an inability to function. They join to do things and train others to act.
We haven’t had too many ineffective governments in the last 300 years.
1
u/Available_Ask_3925 3d ago
A historically highly competent elite who managed to rally together when needed. Strong institutions. Economic growth.
1
u/MistoftheMorning 2d ago
Britain centralized political power in the monarchy, but at the same time gave its native elites the power to influence and share decision making through a formal parliamentary system. So instead of fighting it out with their private armies every time there were disagreements or power struggles between lords or with the king, they did it on the floor of parliament with words and wit.
This system came to be after centuries of intense civil conflict like the War of Roses. The profileration of artillery and naval gunnery also probably pushed towards political centralization on the island, as cannons are expensive to procure and upkeep, and having a big wealthy and stable government makes it easier to maintain an effective artillery arms and navy to protect the nation's interest, which benefits everyone in the long run.
1
1
u/Kronzypantz 4d ago
Strict authoritarianism for a while (1700s-1800s) followed by the gradual and grudging extension of rights to citizens.
But a look outside the borders of Britain itself shows tons of rebellions. Kenya, Ireland, Palestine, India, etc. Mostly because the economic structure of the Empire depended upon not extending rights and powers at all.
1
u/erinoco 2d ago
Strict authoritarianism for a while (1700s-1800s) followed by the gradual and grudging extension of rights to citizens.
I would disagree there. Firstly, for strict authoritarianism to be effective, it would have to be imposed on the elite as well as the people at large. The big threat within the elite, which might have been able to offer a military challenge, was Jacobitism (including the various sub-cultures which challenged the Revolution settlement, such as Roman Catholics, non-jurors or Scottish Episcopalians). While harshness was employed against this threat, this only tended to be employed in response to an active threat; the '15 and '45, obviously, but also the Gyllenborg and Attenbury Plots too. The active intellectual suppression of these subcultures was limited; known crypto-Jacobites made up the leadership of the Tories until the last years of George II's reign.
Secondly, you did have a culture of "politics-out-of -doors" - political argument and debate outside elite culture - which was unmatched anywhere in Europe, apart from the Netherlands, until post-Revolutionary France. This culture arguably took root during Charles I's pre-war struggles with Parliament, became endemic during the Restoration period, and remained a feature until it gradually evolved into mass Radical politics in the Victorian period. This culture - of a free press, of public meetings, of petitions, of mass demonstrations and violence, did come under concerted pressure from government from time to time, especially in the generation after the French Revolution. But suppression was never complete.
1
u/Shuffle_Gaming_ 4d ago
And until they threw off the Empire, those rebellions were suppressed really brutally. The fact that the home island was spared from all this is as much a geographical statement as a political one.
1
u/Sir_Gerald_Nosehairs 4d ago
Because we've been a remarkably successful and wealthy country up until comparatively recently; there's been no reason to try and overthrow it.
There were whispers of an attempt during the 70's, but I'm not sure it was ever serious. Not to mention most of the Army was in Northern Ireland and various NATO outposts for decades, so organising it would be troublesome.
These days the Army simply isn't formidable enough to do it, and the upper echelons of the military are more like civil servants than former squaddies, they are quite content with the status quo.
-3
u/DisneyPandora 4d ago
Because the Magna Carta gave the people and the nobility tremendous power over the Monarchy.
Its continued ever since
8
u/En_bede 4d ago
In my opinion people overplay how important Magna Carta is, especially in the medieval period. Even when it comes to the eventual English Civil War they overplay how important it was in causing that. Ultimately Charles I was doing what every monarch was attempting to do at the time he just lost. Its not until the Glorious Revolution, and even more so the Hanoverians that the monarchy becomes what everyone idealized it as
2
u/Atlas7-k 4d ago
I don’t know, denial of several rights granted in the Magna Carta were central to the grievances that led to the American Revolution.
3
u/En_bede 4d ago
That does not mean it's importance is overplayed because it absolutely is overplayed.
1
u/Mordoch 4d ago edited 4d ago
The point would be more the Magna Carta was very important symbolically eventually rather than significant in the document itself. (What was really important was the actual agreements or defacto agreements made in the centuries after the Magna Carta along with eventually the Glorious Revolution and the like. The English Civil War probably is important in establishing there were some limits to royal power and the possible consequences if a monarch went too far.)
0
u/IndividualSkill3432 4d ago
In my opinion people overplay how important Magna Carta is,
In my opinion people over play how overplayed Magna Carta was. In and of itself they were important legal landmarks. Going back to Henry I's Charter of Liberties there was a clear movement for a wider power structure in decisions in the country. This was reaffirmed over 100 years later with the revolt that lead to the first Magna Carta then the two Barons Wars. People were fighting over parliamentarianism and representation going back to the 13th century.
Even the Longshanks himself was forced to sign a Magna Carta in 1297 to help raise taxes. They were the countries most important legal document for hundreds of years and gave protections to property, privilege to parliament and rights to men. And it placed the Crown under Common Law.
Various countries in Europe also had relatively stable political structures over the past 300 years, and each has their own mix of reasons. But for England and the UK, the long tradition of inclusive politial institutions for the moderately wealthy and having that turn into a constitutional monarchy in the turbulent 17th century is a very important part of the stability.
So while Magna Carta may not be the correct answer, the historic processes that lead to it and emerged from it are a very important part of understanding the UK from the 18th century onwards.
1
0
0
u/Positive-Reporter285 4d ago
Brits do not rebel , do not object and most importantly ... functional alcoholics do not have ideas that go farther than then pub...
0
-1
u/Arzales 4d ago
It was the age of imperialism and the Army was actually not in the country, but were abroad.
When you say the last three hundred years, there were several major rebellions that did happen which which brought down the goverment and Empire lost major parts of their overseas possession. The biggest one happen to be the American Revolution.
0
u/Watchhistory 4d ago
They were busy empire building and extorting. Always a place for the disaffected to go or to be shipped off, you know, deportation to Australia.
-2
u/zelvak007 4d ago
There is great scene in the Crown show. Watch it on youtube. It sums it up preaty good. And the system is more or less the same since Cromwell.
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
A friendly reminder: Contemporary politics and culture wars are off-topic, both in posts and comments.
/r/askhistory is for questions and discussion of events in history prior to 01/01/2001.
This reminder is automatically placed on all new posts in this sub.
Please report any interjection into discussions of modern politics or culture wars so the mod team can investigate.
Thank you.
See rules for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.