I know the British brought in a sizable Indian population to places like British Kenya; what happened to these folks during decolonization? Did they return to India with independence, or the UK, or stay on as an ethnic minority...all of the above?

Specifically the Nazi Party's genocidal intent. Bonus points if anyone knows the extent to which the Wehrmacht ranks supported this.

Dating back to ancient Roman and pre-Christian Times

I’m more familiar with Latin American guerrilla warfare that venerates the peasant class in an attempt to ultimately garner their support for the cause. How similar or different was their approach?

Or, is its continual discussion designed to further the both sides were bad, War of Northern Aggression narrative post war? I could honestly see both being true.

I’m about to read Beevor’s book and I’m looking for an opposing viewpoint to compare & contrast.

I see this in movie and shows a lot where the ruler will have people come in with whatever issues they have and ask the ruler to resolve a dispute/fix the problem. Was it common for kings and queens to act as judges in this way?

When the Dutch East India Company tried to enforce their monopoly on trade in the Banda Islands, they killed a significant portion of the native Bandanese (sources vary on the exact ammount). But I've read somewhere that the Dutch hired Japanese mercenaries.

My first thought was that these were Samurai, since this is not too long after the Sengoku Jidai period. I also thought that Japan started its period of isolation in the 17th century and that the Japanese never trusted the Europeans.

I am aware of the trade relations between the Dutch Republic and Feudal Japan, but what exactly happened here?

I recently watched ‘the Vietnam war’ by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick (amazing documentary which I highly recommend everyone who likes history to watch) and I learned to the great extend that the whole Vietnam was a military failure for the USA. However it got me thinking that the main aim for the USA into going into Vietnam, was to stop communism spreading into the rest of indochina and the world. And after the USA left Vietnam, communism didn’t spread outside of Vietnam and so can the argument be made that the USA achieved its goals. I’m aware that soon after Vietnam finished fighting the USA, it entered a war with Cambodia which could of been the reason communism didn’t spread to the rest of indochina, but I’m mainly curious did communism not spread from Vietnam due to the efforts of the USA or was it other factors?

From the research I've conducted, it seems to be that he supported riots saying that it was a necessity, and that abolishing discriminatory laws was not enough. He may have thought that riots were indeed not done in the purpose to achieve societal strength, but rather as an expression of struggle. I may have a few things wrong so I'd very much like the take you guys have on it.

I've read in the semen retention subreddit that Hitler practiced semen retention for (I think) 12 years. Is there any accounts of Hitler's sex life, or if he indeed practiced semen retention?

Particularly in drawings of animals like lions etc, there’s such a diversion from what things actually look like in medieval depictions, but by the mid 1500s, suddenly artists are painting borderline photorealistic scenes with lots of people.

How did humanity go from drawing like middle schoolers to Da Vinci in only a handful of generations?

Presumably, the ancient Romans believed in various forms of magic. Were people who claimed to practice such magic tolerated by society, or were they persecuted like in many other ancient cultures?

For that matter, were the Roman Empire and its Holy successor republics, technically?

To be specific, I'm curious as to how spies traveled to other countries without getting caught and how and what kind of information they collected. Say for example, between Venice and the Ottoman Empire, keeping the travel distance in mind, how did they make sure the information they gathered wouldn't become obsolete once they arrived at their own country?

My history teacher once told me that the alliance system before and during the great war was so complex that even the nations themselves didn't know with who they where allied with.

but after searching some time i found these treaty's:

Britain's guarantee of independence of Belgian, which got Britain into the war

the treaty of Britain and France that solved some dispute in Africa over British control of Egypt and French control of Morocco. but that was not what got Britain into the war,

the dual alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary, and after that the triple alliance which added Italy. but this was a defensive alliance so they didn't join because of this treaty,

Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia had a treaty that country's would be neutral when the other attacked a third nation, but Germany didn't renew the treaty,

the Russia Franco treaty was signed because Germany didn't renew the treaty mentioned above,

then Britain made a treaty with Russia causing a sort of entente but the treaty only settle some issues in central Asia and would not force Britain to help France or Russia,

Serbia and Montenegro had a defensive alliance,

Russia guarantee of independence of Serbia because it was a Slavic nation,

Britain had a treaty with japan.

​

​

Now looking at this i don't think this is that confusing.

Yeah you have to put everything down and start drawing some alliances lines on a map but i can make sense of it. I see no reason why a nation at that time would not be able to.

​

so are there any more treaty's in don't know about?

​

​

edit: i forgot to mention that i don't need to know the relationships or general opinion between country's (although i would appreciate it) because I think we would be here forever.

I'm curious to know why the Irish depended on potatoes so much and could't plant another crop like wheat or corn. I understand the climate may have some restrictions on what you can grow but potatoes are a new world crop not native to Ireland. I asked my U.S. history teacher about this and he kinda just passed it off as I was an idiot and had no idea what I was talking about. I understand potatoes can feed a family and were also a cash crop but why didn't they plant something else. Did the Crown and Parliament restrict them from doing so or was there some sorta issue that prevent them from trying to plant anything else. For anyone who has information for an answer and shares thank you in advance.