I know that there was a nationalist effort to revive it but it doesn't make sense when you consider that wealthy Chinese families decades ago taught their children English to succeed more.

Most schools teach Spanish because of the massive Latino population in America & foreign populations south of the border.

The yiddish font is rather alien compared to font like what Europeans use, and sometimes even if you don't know the language you can still make out words & sorta understand them because they sorta sound like your words of your language.

"Juan" sounds & looks like "John" for instance. Jewish families might as well be teaching their kids Latin.

Something I am wondering about is how is it that feudal systems in Europe, China, and Japan popped up around the same time historically despite being in different parts of the world (8th to 10th century)? Especially considering global communication would have been far more limited/slowed down at the time (translating, or speed of travel). Was it really something as simple as neighboring countries hearing about each other's hierarchical systems through international traders, or is there more to explaining the timing of feudalism in world history?

My friend and I tried searching for explanations but feel we came up short. If anyone knows any helpful articles, links, or would like to discuss how this occurred even if there are no readily available links I would appreciate any and all input. Just genuinely curious about the timing of this and hoping for some interesting discussion.

I've been doing alot of reading on this sub and asked a few questions about various topics, and as I read some of the stuff in the FAQ about the world wars and other information I've digested from my education and general reading, it seems to me like the Kaiserreich, Nazi Germany, and even the Austro-Hungarian empire seemed to be really bad at logistics. It even seems like the Wehrmacht in particular had an outright disdain for logistics and would ignore their logistical services (don't know the correct term for the people that handled logistics in that organization). I can understand Italy having logistical problems for various reasons but it just seems so bizarre that those other land empires would have those issues.

It seems to me like they'd make unrealistic plans with barely any thought given to how they'd supply or their troops, or make wildly optimistic assumptions about their troops ability to function without supplies. I'd even read that one of the many reasons Stalin didn't believe the Germans would attack when they did is because they were not producing or purchasing any of the things they'd need in anywhere near the quantities required to be successful in such a massive invasion - winter clothing for example (maybe a bad example because of the widespread myth of winter being the deciding factor in defeating the Nazi's, but still the first example I could think of).

I'd read of similar, but less extreme behavior done by the German Army in the first world war, and that the Austro-Hungarians had even worse problems than the Germans. Stuff like offensives starting out successful then falling apart because of poor logistical planing being routine, or complete dysfunction on the part of the Austro-Hungarians ( I am a little wary of the stuff about the Austro-Hungarians because I had been reading up a bit recently that the narrative I was taught as a kid that it was perpetually sick and dying and doomed to fail no matter what isn't popular anymore).

I don't understand why these large land empires would decide to ignore logistics to the degree they did. I know the Nazi's were devoted to an incoherent and insane ideology that assumed they'd be victorious before christmas based on the inferiority of their enemies - but surely they looked at a map at one point and realized how large the invasion would be, looked at the amount of troops and realized "this is going to be a bitch to supply for any amount of time".

Plus the Kaiserreich and the Austro-Hungarians - they had large empires and surely must've had experience moving stuff around, so why did they seem to not put any focus into logistics?

It all just seems so weird to me that they'd make these glaringly obvious mistakes, especially considering that at least the Wehrmacht studied Napoleon's invasion of Russia.

So what's the deal? Is the conceit behind my question wrong and I need to figure out the right question to ask?

Or is there a nice long answer describing the historical reasons the Germans (and to a lesser extent Austro-Hungarians) were bad at logistics?

I want to thank in advance anyone who takes the time to read this and explain the factors involved. I really love this sub and appreciate all the effort you guys put into answering questions.

Edit: sorry about the typo in the title, I'm on mobile and didn't catch it til I posted it.

Karl Marx believed white people were superior to blacks, but he did believe that everyone is equal in the big picture because class struggle unites us all, and we can't call him racist because that was seen as common knowledge back then. Karl Marx also hated jews because he said they were greedy, so is it the same with the white supremacy where it was seen as common knowledge?

On Omaha Beach, were entire landing crafts really wiped out in 3 seconds? Were soldiers getting mowed down as much as shown in the movie?

I’ve always heard that we are almost certain Jesus existed as at least some dude who lived at that time. What else is commonly assumed as something that happened?

Hello!

I am currently looking for a book that will cover the history of WWI. I've been looking for this answer online but most of the books that I find people suggest only focus on a part of WWI, for instance, The Guns of August sounds interesting but only covers a certain period. I would prefer something that begins with the events that led to the war and ending with the aftermath. One of the books I've found that may fit the bill is A World Undone by G. J. Meyer, but I'm not finding too much about it yet.

Thanks!

For starters are we even 100% sure he existed?

When and how did we start tracking years how we do now? If we go off of Jesus’s life time how were people able to track what year he was alive in if it was before we tracked years in BCE and AD? How do we also know random historical events hundreds of years later actually happened in 300 BC or 200 AD?

Are the writings of Graham Hancock on the antiquity of the Egyptian pyramids and Sphinx legitimate or is it him trying to enforce a false/made-up narrative?

This might be a very stupid question but I am an outsider looking in on this topic and his arguments sound convincing. Hence thought it would be better to ask it here. Thank you.

While the empire was still strong why didn't they take the lands between Carpathian Mountains and Caspian sea? The lands are fertile and nations inhabiting them are not as powerful as persians and arabs. When I play Crusader Kings 2 or 3 the Byzantines most of the time expand north so it sparked some interest.

A lot of people have fallen prey to what I believe is propaganda.

Socialism and communism and the name Marx itself are verboten taboos. And because of this taboo, and all the misinformation swirling around it, rational, clear thought on the subject cannot be achieved.

It would help me clarify some of my thoughts to have this question answered decisively. [Any book titles on this subject would be greatly appreciated.]

It’s my half-educated, half-speculative opinion that China and the USSR are far, far more reflective of the personalities of Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin than of the speculations of Karl Marx.

I will grant, of course, that Marx was a greater influence on them than, say, Adam Smith or Ricardo...

... so, maybe Marx was the root stock, and these cults-of-personality were grafted on, very close to the ground, at the main stem?

The results, in my opinion, are as much Marx’s “fault” as the Crusades and Pograms belong to Jesus Christ, or Neoliberal Capitalism belongs to Smith.

How off base is this line of thinking?

Edit: I think a simple way to ask this would be: “Would Marx have agreed that the governments of China and the USSR in the 20th century accurately reflected his ideas on economics?”

I apologize if I've mangled the question at all, and no offense is meant to any Catholic readers. Confused Protestant medievalist is confused.

I know that Pride month started in the 70s, and National Coming Out Day started in 1988, but it seems like the 90s saw a rise in LGBTQ+ awareness - October 1994 was the first LGBT History month, the Day of Silence and Intersex Awareness Day in 1996, Celebrate Bisexuality Day and Transgender Day of Remembrance in 1999. While many of these events wouldn't get "official" recognition from local or federal governments, it still feels like there was a surge in LGBTQ+ awareness in the 1990s. Is this accurate? What was behind it?

Apparently he had a secret surgery out in the ocean so nobody would find out. Why not tell anyone what was going on?

I was reading a reddit thread where the claim was made that Hitler has been pumped full of multiple drugs since at least the mid-30s by his personal physician. I have also heard stories about the army being given methamphetamines, such as when they trapped the allies at Dunkirk. How much truth is there to these claims?