Even more surprising is that in fact the National Party only won 1% more of the vote and the United Party only won 0.5% less than last election which the United Party had won. The Wikipedia article goes into some detail in insisting on the general superiority of the National Party's campaign yet that swing is tiny and the overall margin of popular vote huge. It also talks about gerrymandering/malapportionment with rural areas being heavily weighted which certainly makes sense but it still feels surprising that only a small change in popular vote made such a huge difference in seat result. I noticed that Smuts had in fact had 2 elections before with a similar "won the vote count, lost the seats" result (1924 and 1929) so it feels like something that he'd be aware could happen and would want to change in his 9 years of government.

​

It then seems surprising again that seemingly the lopsided result was accepted, but that may well be just because it's not mentioned on Wikipedia rather than it not happening, haha. I would definitely be curious what happened in the 5 years after that that led to the United Party being genuinely defeated in the popular vote.

I know there were attempts but why were those setbacks more critical than ones suffered taking Iberia?

We’re you assigned a job? Did you choose what job you got? Was it based on what was available in your area?

I’ve heard that it was based off taking an aptitude test but I don’t know how true that is.

I don't really understand how Henry VII was related to the line of succession. Ive looked at a family tree and can't seem to wrap my head around it. How exactly was Henry Tudor related to the previous kings?

So I've been reading "A Problem from Hell" by Samantha Powers, and in the part of the book regarding Cambodia, she talks about how the United States want to avoid hurting its relations with China. The reason for this was that it saw China as a potential Ally against the Soviet Union. At the time, she wrote, the Soviet Union was engaging in de-Stalinization, while China under Chairman Mao disfavored this movement.

While I can understand this causing tension between the Soviet Union and China, I am confused why this wouldn't cause the United States to seek out more friendly relationships with the Soviet Union to the detriment of China. To my understanding, a big part of de-Stalinization was the acceptance of peaceful coexistence with the free-market west, as opposed to hostilely challenging it. Why wouldn't the United States try to take advantage of this movement, and work more toward containing China? Was it just geopolitical momentum that kept the Soviet Union and United States in an antagonist relationship at this point? Why wouldn't the United States be more concerned about working towards allying with China during its peak communist era?

In the Middle Ages what was the physical act of baking like for a baker? Were they putting dough in an oven and watching til it was done? Did they have a way to monitor or control temps? Did they simply have warmer and cooler sections of an oven? It seems like so many recipes call for very different and specific temperatures.

And a possible follow up question. When did pastries as we know them become common. I understand this is a very broad question.

Thanks in advance.

Was thinking about how ISIS destroyed many antiquities in their territory and how the Taliban destroyed the statues of the Buddha. Were there ever any conservative or extreme religious movements in Egypt that seriously advocated for demolishing the relics of Egypt's pre-Abrahamic past?

My question is, how does an average person identify and recognize the truth vs. propaganda when you are trying to learn about certain topics? Does it require countless hours investigating, verifying, and recording facts? If so, one would only have the time to choose a handful of topics due to limited time, so their learning and perspective would not be well-rounded which carries its own flaws.

What spurred this question:

1. living in the U.S, continuous headlines about evil doings of China are pushed on us. Perhaps China is good, perhaps China is bad, perhaps the U.S is actually the bad, or perhaps world order is far too complicated to pinhole into one bad versus good. Regardless, it’s a topic of interest that is difficult to untangle.

2. When studying WWII, one of the ways Winston Churchill was able to get a jump on his British colleagues (and other world leaders) on the dangers of Hitler, was by reading Hitler’s own book, Mein Kampf, and by studying Hitler’s movements (I gained this insight from reading Churchill’s Last Lion biography series. It may be true, it may not be. I’m taking the word of the biographer). I then read Mein Kampf myself, and yes, Hitler laid out his brilliant but dangerous thinking very clearly within that text.

Considering points 1 and 2, how would one go about studying China and/or the U.S and identify their dangers without getting trapped by disinformation/propaganda/spin? The same line of thinking can also be applied to many other topics of interest throughout current day and history.

I ask this sub because studying history helps understand how we got to where we are today, which helps better understand current events and positioning of international affairs.

Title is the question.

Without pork (I’m assuming), what filled out the protein portion of a soldier or jannisary’s ration?

Peasants or people of importance alike, do they acknowledge that such places are their community's heritage? If a Roman peasant from late 16th century looked at the ruins of a temple from Roman Empire, would they even care? Would a local lord know the backgrounds of all the historical sights in their domain?

A tumblr screencap came up in my social media feed claiming the following:

“I used to be a spelling and grammar freak until I took a course on ‘History of the English Language’.

When English spelling was standardised, the dictionary writers LITERALLY made the rules of “Proper English” super fucking hard on purpose because they didn’t want “the wrong sort of people” (ie 90% of English speakers) to be able to pass themselves off in high society

That’s why English has so many bullshit grammar rules that make no sense about double negatives and split infinitives and stuff. To make sure that only people with years of training in the nonsensical and arbitrary rules of ‘proper speech’ could speak ‘properly’ “

This idea would fit with my own personal left wing bias but actually how accurate is this claim?

I am trying to understand the role of court fools or jesters in the middle ages. And to see how similar they were to professional comedians and entertainers today. Could you make a lot of money? Was this a respected occupation? Etc.

Hey all,

As some of you may know, CK3 will be launching soon, and therefore, Paradox has started streaming the game on youtube.

During the stream, the king of Leon schemes to abduct the King of France so that he can ask for ransom.

Was this a thing during the medieval ages? Rulers abducting foreign lords to ask for ramson or for other purposes? Wouldnt this have caused a war?

I'd see movies and ww2 photos of japanese soldiers carrying swords.I'd like to ask if every japanese soldier in ww2 carried a sword,not specifically a "katana",or only officers ?

Thank you for your time,have a nice day.

America in the later 1800’s was quickly pulling itself together, after losing a humiliating war to Great Britain and their northern neighbors only a few decades ago America had dealt with its pesky neighbors down south winning their war against Mexico in outstanding fashion and successfully securing the west for further expansion. After getting it’s shit together with slavery and southern succession, America kicks in the teeth of one of Europe’s oldest empires in the spanish American war.

I’ve been told a joke by a few of my French and Italian friends that their teachers would call “manifest destiny” American for imperialism. With México and the spanish colonies in the poor state they were in why didn’t the US swoop in to get some more of that sweet sweet land and turn them into states?

Wasnt it obvious by 1944 the ussr could defeat Germany without a western front? didn't Stalin see the potential to extend Soviet control throughout western Europe if the allies didn't invade?

What is the history, if any, of Vice-Presidential primary elections in the USA (more than 20 years ago, of course)?