Specifically, it's said that Carl Laemmle, the co-founder and owner of Universal, felt it was important to warn the audience of how terrifying Frankenstein was. By the time it was released in November 1931, there had been 3 other silent film adaptations of the Frankenstein novel. There had also been several other horror films released by Universal, including The Phantom of the Opera and Dracula. Was Frankenstein really considered so much more shocking that a warning was necessary to prepare the audience?

In WW2 its mentioned how USA supported Russian war efforts with supplies, How did they get there? with germany controlling the west and japan in the east?

I hear how USA supplied Russia millions of boots, and plans for the now infamous URAL truck (maybe incorrect?) and basically money and funds for the war effort. how did these things get from USA to Russia? was everything flown over the north pole enmasse?

I hear it a lot, but the logistics seems quite the undertaking that I never hear explained or discussed.

Was Qing Dynasty just the name of the ruling family or is it also the name of the nation?

Sorry if the question sounds a little broad, but I'm interested in learning more about statements that were made by a commenter in another subreddit:

In the past, even under Putin, Russia has tried to join and play nice with the west. The US and UK always block them. [...]

the US made Russia the problem it is today from the fall of the soviet union in an attempt to get American capital in control of privatized Russian resources to start (and to create domestic political climates that allowed it to attack labor and education) [...]

Putin requested to negotiate a membership in NATO at least a couple times in the first few years of being in power [...]

try googling "Russia shock doctrine" and you should get results that explain how the US created the new Russian oligarchy similar to how we created Pinochet [...]

the CIA [...] [has caused] death tolls directly or indirectly in the 10s of millions

Is anyone here able to add some color to these claims and clarify what the facts of the situation are?

"The war that will end all wars" is a fairly well-known phrase referring to World War I, especially for the tragic irony that can be read there in hindsight.

But is it really a phrase uttered at the beginning of the conflict? By whom? Was it a propaganda phrase to convince people to fight, or did it contain sarcasm even then?

Here is the quote:

“And so it is that you by reason of your tender regard for the writing that is your offspring have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.”

Plato seems to suggest that writing is an ineffective means of teaching because readers are not thinking for themselves - just reading the words of another. Despite this, Plato wrote a large volume of philosophical works.

Is there more to this comment than appears from the language?

In the UK Daily Telegraph today there's an article that includes the claim from the actor Paterson Joseph "History is better when you look at it in colour,” he continues, praising Sam Mendes’s 2019 film 1917 for depicting a Sikh soldier fighting in the British Army. “But most people don’t know that brown people fought in the war, because soldiers of colour were banned from appearing in the VE celebrations." Was this so? It's not clear if he means 1919 or 1945 (VE?) or if he means in the US or the UK. But I'd be surprised if it was true of the UK in 1919 and astonished if true in 1945.

A lot of media depict nobility or even kings living permanently within castles as their main residence. Was this a real practice and if it is was it common or rare?

If someone wants to go to another country for what ever reason how would they learn a language?

Principle IV reads:

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

What situations was this last clause intended to provide for? When would a moral choice not be possible to a soldier? I can imagine truly bizarre hypotheticals where no moral choice is possible, but why realistically was this language included? How can we situate the appearance of this language in the history of the laws of war?

Reading and watching videos about the collapse, thinking about it as essentially a combination of famines, earthquakes, invasions and migrations, it started to make me think of the events predicted in the dream of Pharoah told to Joseph in Genesis 41, of seven years of plenty followed by seven years of drought, that Egypt survives through clever rationing but other nations do not. Similarly, it made me think of some of the Plagues of Egypt in Exodus, the dirtying of the water of the Nile, the plague of lice and locusts, many deaths from disease, as well as those claimed to be the firstborn children killed by God. That sounds a lot to me like a record of events during a near-society-collapsing event, but I am not a historian or archaeologist and that is complete conjecture. Is this a connection/similarity that has been noticed before and has been conclusively proven correct or incorrect?

I live in Brazil, and I can’t really find many info about Codreanu and his organization. All I know is that it was an antissemitic, anti-roma and anti-magyar organization. But why did they hate those people? Did the Iron Guard have any involvement in holocaust?

So I'm aware that the Germans had camps for forced labor and execution camps, but when the Jews were forced into labor how much of it was actual productive work that would make, I dunno, clothes, rifles, food, whatever, and how much of it was actually just pointless labor to tire them out?

Were any crusades in particular more receptive to woman’s involvement? What are the best primary sources to learn more about this from the time?

Pretty much the title, sorry if it's a stupid question but how did Latin end up as a dead language when Catholic Churches used it for Mass/Church services?

I'm curious about strains of cannabis getting famous in general, but I assume now days a lot of this can be linked to the internet and cannabis culture. But how did strains like Maui Wowie and Acapulco Gold get famous back in the day? Was there some precursor to "high times" magazine? Or was it purely just word of mouth that popularized certain strains?

I don't know much about the war, why this blew out into a full scale war in the first place and the depths of horror. I do see references from celebrities/athletes from the region who have talked about the circumstances of growing up during this time. It seems hard to believe that the UN wouldn't have interceded in a conflict in Central Europe resulting in genocide, mass rapes, and cultural cleansing.