If the nearby Communist states and China were willing to fund, train and arm guerillas to attack Rhodesia, why would they stop providing support to Zimbabwe once it had gained its independence?

For example, during the land seizures, a lot of skilled expertise in managing the economy was lost, however, wouldn't Communist-aligned states be willing/able to provide materiel and educational support to replace the lost skills in agriculture? It seems like once Zimbabwe had gained independence, it was abandoned by the Eastern bloc to its own devices.

I was wondering how did those displaced by The Holocaust recover after the war? Were they able to recover any houses that might have been taken from them? How they even begin to return to normality?

The wikipedia article of the game did not really elaborate, and so I ask here

From my understanding, honor and violence was a big part of basically all of Europe during the middle ages, and it included both peasantry and nobility alike. How come Iceland developed a culture of blood feuds and what did it entail that makes Iceland different from the rest of Scandinavia and Europe?

What's the differnce that made rifles so prominent over swords, why use them more in the 1800s than the 1600s or the 1700s ? The first rifle to fire more than a single shot before reloading was made during the First World War, so it couldn't have been the fact that Rifles shot more bullets or something, and even during Napoleon's era, the rifles took 17 or 16 steps to reload!

Hi! Today is the Swedish day in the Nordic countries. The date originates from the death day of Gustav Adolf. My question is why is it called the Swedish day when the day is celebrated on a former kings death day?

It always seems like whenever the North Vietnamese Air Force is mentioned during the Vietnam War they seem to fight very defensively, mostly air superiority and interception missions. Is there a reason for this? Did they ever go on offensive missions against U.S. positions?

From my understanding, America started taking a more proactive stance in global geopolitics towards the end of nineteenth century. After World War 1, America was strongly involved in the economic rehabilitation of Europe before it entered a period of isolationism in the 1930s. I've read and heard references to "American hegemony" during the 20th century, so around when exactly did America establish itself as a hegemon, and was there a pivotal event that marked America's arrival as the greatest of the world powers?

​

The second part of my question has to do with the Cold War. If America was indeed a hegemonic power why was the USSR able to challenge America in geopolitics so strongly during the Cold War? I've read that American industrial and militaristic capabilities were unmatched during the second half of the nineteenth century. If America was truly so powerful, why did the Cold War wage on for as long as it did?

​

I understand this is a super loaded question, I'm trying to contextualize and understanding America's strength in the 1900s. Thanks so much :)

I have a school debate project about the great depression in Canada, and I came across a puzzling statistic. (The source is one that teachers tell us to use all the time) It says "30 per cent of the labour force was out of work." but the unemployment rate at the time was 19%. How is this possible?

He says that 40% of Europe’s sugar comes from Haiti and 60% of its coffee. It’s economic contributions amounted to 40% of french overseas trade. With all the spanish colonies in the Americas, and all the other Caribbean islands, how was Haiti so dense? They couldn’t grow plants on top of each other, could they? i would imagine that there simply wasn’t the flat land available to conduct much farming, but clearly there was. And if the land is so incredibly fertile there, them why is the other side of the island, modern Dominican Republic, so much less productive? Perhaps It would help to give statistics for mass or volume of crops produced?

EDIT: I’m terribly sorry, but the exact quote is “in the early 1790’s the produce of this former slave colony of 8,000 plantations was greater than all of Europe’s Caribbean and American colonies combined”. It appears as though he meant 8,000 plantations, not 8,000 people.

Last I heard of this man, I was thinking that historians thought he was insane (he thought he was the brother of Jesus, among other things, and he started the worst civil war ever.) I've also heard of a secondary explanation: while he was insane, he had a point that China desperately needed modernization. What do historians think of Hong Xiquan? Truly insane, or did he have a point after all? Or something else?

I'm referring to England in the 1600-1800's.

My understanding is that England was a feudal society, with lords and dukes overseeing the poor peasants, who tilled their lands and worked in their factories.

How was peasantry in England different from Scotalnd and Ireland in that time?

Did the poverty experienced by these Englishmen lead them to escape to the New World and Australia/NZ?

Is it safe to say that the English in early Canada/America/Australia were predominantly from a poor, working class background?