Were they thrown into concentration camps? Sorry if this is a dumb question.

How did military and/or political leadership get ordinary soldiers to fire into a crowd of protesters? The specifics in my mind are the Russian revolution of 1905 and 1917, as well as the various times troops were called out to deal with workers strikes in many other countries. I'm thinking mid 19th and 20th century militaries as opposed to older eras when things might have been more decentralized. Thank you guys for anything you can give me!

I am doing a Ph D conference article on the first year of UNESCO and I found that the famous Sociologist (and Freud's friend in London) Karl Mannheim was planning to get elected to the post of the General Director in 1947 (but he died). I searched for his translator into English, Paul Kecskeméti, and I found his books and in one of them the authors mention their work on this topic for the Oval Office - see: Paul Kecskemeti & Nathan Leites (1947) Some Psychological Hypotheses on Nazi Germany: I, The Journal of Social Psychology, 26:2. But where could I find out about how such reports for the Oval Office were organized in 1944? (I found articles on the tension and conflict between State and Treasury due to the Jewish Question in 1939 and in 1942 and finally in 1944 but this is still a detail that coild not be cleared for me.)

By 1453 Byzantium controlled only isolated pockets of territory outside the capital. Asia Minor and the Levant were controlled by Islamic states, who presumably controlled the trade at the end of the silk roads. Was Europe still obtaining eastern merchandise through Constantinople in the mid-fifteenth century? And if so, with whom did the Byzantines trade to obtain these goods? Why was it that after the city fell to the Turks, no European state was willing/able to trade with Islam? In the ~50 years between the fall of Constantinople and da Gama's voyage to India, was Europe entirely deprived of eastern goods?

It just seems bizarre to me that not even states like Venice or Genoa were able to establish trade with Egypt or the Ottomans, considering the enormous profit to be made by both parties. I hope someone can answer at least a few of my queries.

I imagine that people traveling around the world by ship/land wouldn't have managed to travel fast enough to realize the shift in time zones or communicate with people in their homelands without realizing the time difference between them. Is the concept of timezones a product of the heliocentric theory?

What were the reasons given, how does it relate to the historical context?

I imagine that many people who spend months and years on concentration camps had no possessions when the war ended. What would have happened to their home and the rest of their possessions? If there house was now occupied by someone else what could be done and was there any sort of compensation that these people received? Would really appreciate an answer to this, thank you in advance.

I know films like Dracula and Frankenstein were taken from books, but did they make it on stage? Did audiences thrill to a splash of fake gore and a bloody knife?

note: my historical knowledge is very limited, there may be errors or misconceptions on my part, or the question may be loaded, too vague or open-ended.

as i understand it, after the central leadership of the romans vanished the germanic peoples mass-migrated into and within Europe to fill the power vacuum, claim new territory, form new kingdoms and expand their rule - fair enough.

what i don’t get is why the new leadership seem to have had to start completely from scratch, like building small motte-and-baileys across the land, each with a dozen or so guards ruling over only a small area.

if these regions were already populated wouldn’t there have been previous leadership that had already built fortifications to administer the area? or were there just large swathes of unclaimed land around Europe at the time?

did the tribes around areas previously subject to roman rule take advantage of roman infrastructure and bureaucracy? i understand that the political power is gone, but wouldn’t there still be roman statesmen, cities, settlements, fortifications and estates around that would have enabled more centralised state powers to grow?

it seems strange to me that these tribes would have to build their kingdoms from scratch, as if Europe was simply rebooted after the western roman empire fell.

What is Sparta's patron God?

I'm just wondering was the sack of Baghdad really what caused a civil war between the Ilkhanate and golden Horde? I thought both hordes were muslim? Was there anything else which couldve caused the berke hulagu war? I understand one party also sold slaves to the mamluks and some say that's another reason?

I'm a new MA student and I'm looking to do my thesis on women's experiences of supernatural and preternatural beings and essentially how this affected their lives (ex. creating reputations and livelihoods for themselves, how the wider public viewed them, etc.) I'm in the very early stages and while my supervisor really supports this topic, he is unsure of whether there will be enough resources to make it viable. I'm familiar with works by Kathryn A. Edwards and Owen Davies in particular that speak about the supernatural, but does anyone have any other suggestions of where to start out?

In the 60s and 70s there's was this commonly expressed idea that the Capitalist West and Communist East were both essentially converging towards the same thing. Namely a corporatist system where enterprises, be they multinational conglomerates or state owned enterprises, were so complex and had such diffused ownership that management of the economy would default into the hands of professional managers and faceless technocrats.

Of course, this was never true*, but it wasn't entirely wrong either. It's not inaccurate to say that in practical terms there was plenty of overlap in terms of things like logistics, internal administration, and general management. Moreover, there was plenty of direct business dealings between western companies and state enterprises. So I'm a little curious if things got to the point where the Soviets did things like send people out to participate in corporate workshops or hired consultants to come in to get things up to snuff.

^(*Please, unless you have something) ^(really) ^(interesting to say, please don't make your response a litany of all the failings of the Soviet system, I'm already well aware of all that)

[deleted]

Hey I wonder if any of you guys could enlighten me, as a youngster I used to think it was litterally one trench vs another trench for months but I’ve grown to learn there were many many lines of trenches, believing there was only one line and knowing the allies statergy, aka over the top, I wondered if any at all made it to the enemy trench and then what happened? But now I know there was multiple trenches am I right to think even though the strategy was bad that every now and then the overwhelming charges manage to capture a trench entirely and push the axis back a trench or am I getting it wrong ?

Hookers, brothels, strip clubs, and depictions of sex are all very common, especially in Pattaya and Bangkok. Even in the airport when I arrived, there was a mural on the wall that emulated old murals, and it essentially depicted an orgy. All of this stands in stark contrast to the rest of Asia. Pornography is highly illegal in China, sex is taboo in Japan...everywhere else in Asia is much more conservative. Not only that, but the sex culture in Thailand is very clearly open to all genders and sexualities -- the ladyboys being a particularly notable example of this. Is all of this a recent development? If so (and if this question doesn't run afoul of Rule 3), what are the native Thai perceptions of this development? What specific historical events and circumstances have resulted in the vibrant, sexually permissive culture of modern day Thailand?