I'm currently reading Everyday Stalinism by Sheila Fitzpatrick, and in it she mentions the importance for the new elite to be "cultured," which in this case included, among other things, familiarity with classic authors (she specifically mentions Tolstoy and Chekov). Was this ever at odds with their ideology? It's a bit surprising to me that a government so opposed to people who were part of the old elite would still be so welcoming of older Russian culture.

I'm aware that until recently, Malaysia had the longest-running elected political party in the world. I'm curious to know how "legitimate" that party was during that time - were elections during that party's reign free and fair, or would they be considered more undemocratic?

I have little knowledge on this topic and I would like to learn a little bit more. What are your views?

I would imagine that the lack of adequate food, as well as money and time, would mean the peasantry of these times had less time to experiment with food and cooking, and therefore cooking and recipes would develop slower. Perhaps I am wrong though. Are recipies a rather new invention? Were recipies passed down from the nobility who had more food, money, and presumably time to cook? Was it because cooking as more of a science and art is a more recent development? Or are my assumptions about the peasantry just wrong? I would love to see any answers on this subject.

So I have been learning a bit more about Polish history however I have found very limited info about the Pagan raction that occured in poland. Does anyone know if there are good primary sources about it.

When looking at American Bandstand episodes, especially back in the 1950s and 1960s, every artist on stage would lip sync their music rather than actually play it. On the Ed Sullivan show however, artists authentically played their music. What was the purpose of having artists lip sync during this time?

I am talking about the jokes that are made about the French Army or France in general, with regards to military matters.

I know that during World War 2 France surrendered more quickly then it was expected, but from what i know, France has had quite a lot of military success throughout it's history. Was the situation worsened for their reputation, by them losing their colonial empire, even though every other colonial power lost theirs as well?

Thank you!

Hey guys, so I'm looking for a good book that talks about the history of Christianity in North Africa.

I can read in English, French and Arabic.

Cheers!

First I would like to say that this is not an argumentative post, I am not trying to dismiss any claims about WW2. But lately more and more people are saying that the infallible german tanks are a myth, or that the Soviet human wave tactic I'd a myth, or even that the Soviets were actually well supplied. If these claims are really false then why did the Soviet Union lose so much land and men in the early stages of the war?

By the way, I'm aware there's varying legends about the origin of the dish that supposedly got its start in Placerville, CA. My question isn't necessarily about this specific legend (although it would certainly be cool if a historian here had insights into its veracity) but more about the veracity of last meal requests and how elaborate they could be in general.

most peasants until around the 15th century (i believe) never ventured more than 5-10 miles from their village / settlement

roughly when did people of the lower classes start to routinely venture out on much longer journeys of say 100 miles+ to interact with other villages and emerging towns ?

I travel to Rome in the year 600 AD, intending to get a good look of the entire city, how will the city look like?I know the population was very low, and the city itself was full of ruins, but where would there be more people? Less people? Or were they evenly distributed around the city? Were old roman houses partially rebuilt, or would you see more medieval houses inbetween empty or ruined roman houses?

Anyone know of any artist reinditions of the city duinrg this period?

Reading an article about neofascism (I. R. Barnes, Patt. of Prej., The Pedigree of GRECE I, 1980) I came across this paragraph:

"This attitude is reminiscent of a view put forward in Nation Europa (May 1954), a German based mouthpiece of international fascism. The journal reminded its readers of the tradition that the German ancestral tribes sent out male youths under a young Führer to capture new land. This was called the 'sacred spring', a semi-divine movement involving sacrifice and death." (p. 17)

However, I cannot find other sources mentioning it. Is this a real ritual or a neofascist invention?

When did people begin to study and write about Greek and Roman mythology? Was it only in the renaissance or were these myths and Stories passed on continuously from the time of both civilizations. With this said are there primary sources on the mythology of both societies or were the stories fabricated and dramaticized by renaissance historians.

So one of the key points in American history was the Louisiana Purchase, in which Napoleon sold vast amounts of territory to the US. I know that he was skeptical of France’s capabilities to safeguard the land, but I’m wondering how did France not lose Louisiana during the French Revolution (pre-Napoleon)? During that time France was being invaded on all sides and facing constant civil strife, with there still be significant monarchist pockets of support.

As in, what stopped the First Coalition or Native Americans from seizin the territory during the War of the First Coalition? I don’t think that the French settlers in Lousina would have been the most supportive of the revolution either, so what stopped them from becoming a monarchist remnant, or simply stop listening to French authorities?

So for the longest I never understood why Poseidon was credited with creation of the horse (or earthquakes tbh). But today I saw an awesome gif of wild horses having a blast out on the beach. Is his relationship with the horse due to a strong real life relationship that horses had with the beach back then?

In Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary at war, 1914-1918, Alexander Watson discusses that although the Central Powers decision to introduce rationing/maximum prices etc did initially help to create a we're all in this together mentality (obviously important for morale etc) as time went on it actually contributed to increasing financial and supply issues/shortages.

For example, he points out

how maximum prices (that often took little account of production costs) provided little incentive for farmers (who during harvest time might be forced to work 18 hour days) to produce more food and in some situations it actually encouraged farmers to waste valuable crops as livestock feed (because fodder was actually more expensive than the crop max price) at a time when the central powers were often very short of food (due to shortages of food/fertiliser imports, war damage etc). (Heavily paraphrased, Deprivation, Ring of Steel)

I've seen similar criticisms regarding rationing/max prices etc during WW2 as well and I just wondered why rationing is often introduced even though it seems to generate these longer-term side-effects (i.e. it can actually lower overall available stocks)? Has anyone ever done a 'what if they hadn't introduced max prices etc'; does the good outweigh the bad? Or is it more complicated with rationing serving as more of a political rather than economic/financial option e.g. rationing is introduced not (only) to hopefully ensure more equitable distribution of limited resources per se but because that's what it superficially appears to do (i.e. for political/public morale reasons)?

Thanks for reading