I was reading about it the other day and found out it involved all the great powers of Europe and their colonies (which was most of Asia and Africa). So why isn't it regarded as a World War? Due to the comparatively less number of casualties or it something like that?

I can't find the answer to either of these questions on the internet. Surely someone as paranoid as Joseph Stalin would think twice before keeping the husband of someone convicted of treason in a top government position? There must be more to this story!

First, my apologies if the title has any sort of ahistorical connotation, I was just trying to keep my wording concise. I’ve been listening to a podcast on the history of Ireland, and the host, Fin Dwyer, talked about how Charlemagne’s grasp on the northern French coast made peaceful trading with the outposts and towns impossible, so Scandinavians resorted to raiding more often. He mentions it relatively offhand, so I’m not sure how much stock to put into it, but I was just wondering if there’s much in the record about the shift from peaceful traders to internationally feared raiders. Thanks in advance!

The way Germans followed Hitler and the Nazis and tried to occupy Europe and exterminate Jews seems really weird in a way. Even just looking at Hitler's speeches he seems obviously messed up, and it is weird that people found that charismatic and followed him.

The only explanation I can think of is that there was a lot of anger in German society at the time, and that Hitler and the Nazis were a good fit for that anger. People were holding lots of anger inside, and the Nazis gave them a way to express it into action.

I cannot imagine why people would have followed Hitler, started that kind of war, or fought it the way they did without anger motivating it. Even ignoring the moral and ethical considerations, the war seems to have been fought in an impulsive and not very intelligent way.

Ok so I'm an ap student for the past school year I have been diligently working and studying however as may approaches my anxiety is rising and I'm trying to find a good video or lectures that I can take notes on to try and bring back the knowledge I've learned throughout the year any suggestions? Length does not matter I'm willing to dedicate as much time as possible. Thank you and have a wonderful day night or whatever

George Washington didnt want the job and Thomas Jefferson didnt mention being president on his epitaph. Seems to me like it was closer to “Lead paperwork filer” than President. Today, when an African country develops a government and installs a president, very often the presidents remove the term limits, but all US presidents but one held to two terms just for ethics.

Is it that US presidents are already well off when they’re elected, or the American ecosystem has always had an itchy “That’s Facism” trigger finger? Was George Washington simply thay influential? Maybe ambitious politicians that push incumbents out are more common compared with Africa. I’m especially interested in how countries that emulate the US’ system are missing something, what could that be?

Inspired by a recent post here, as well as my recent dna test saying I am over 1/4 French. It is so unexpected because it comes from my father who was born in Guatemala, and his parents were too. I always thought it was mostly the Spanish who settled there while the French were more northern, but this has thrown my limited knowledge of European settlers for a loop.

Edit: Woah! My first silver! Thank you kind stranger :)

I am writing an essay for my uni on either the persecution of minorities or the enforcement of conformity in Middle Age Europe. I've not decided yet but since the questions are similar I've started my reading of Secondary literature.

Does anyone know of any good primary sources linked to either of these themes that would help me structure an argument?

From my secondary reading I've decided to play into the enormous breadth of the question in both a geographical and chronological sense, and try to map how attitudes changed over time and varied according to region. I will need a range of primary sources, then, to begin to construct my argument.

I have found it odd that the term "aryan" and swastika were adopted by the Nazis. Aryan has been a term used to describe Indo-Iranaian people, not the blonde hair, blue eye übermensch. The Swastika has been used across Asia and is still used in Indian religions. Why did they appropriate these from cultures so far away, and clearly not Germanic in origin, to tout Germanic superiority? Did Hitler or some other ranking official go on some Beatles-esque retreat to India?

From my uninformed point of view, the division of Ireland and the partition of India seem to share some superficial similarities. For one, the divisions seemed to be mostly along religious lines. The Republic of Ireland was for Catholics and Northern Ireland for Protestants the same way that India was for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims. Of course, on the subcontinent the partition resulted in the mass migration of Pakistani Hindus to India and Indian Muslims to Pakistan. Did the same thing happen in Ireland? Did Catholics in Northern Ireland depart for the Republic and Irish Protestants for the north?

Sorry if this sounds a bit basic but what do we know about how indigenous peoples prepared and consumed peanuts? Did they boil them, dry them, bake them, grind them up, press them for oil, or...what?

When reading about the Trailing Tears it linked to the Cherokee which mentioned that the Cherokee had been fighting against the U.S. in courts to become a sovereign nation. Upon reading that, it made me curious if this contributed more to their removal than the rampant racism and racial supremacy at the time.

I was wondering about the fate of the members of the Achaemenid dynasty after the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander of Macedon ; I know that the daughter of Darius III was assassinated by Roxane, Alexander's first wife, and that the niece of Darius III, Amastris, was drowned by her two sons (who then were executed by Lysimachus, but not much more. Surely, there are more members to such an ancient dynasty ?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Today, contemporary people might look askance at a purportedly "factual" document that includes supposedly realistic encounters with gods, monsters, ghosts, magicians with supernatural powers, etc. - but how do historians deal with such fantastical elements? Are they disregarded as fictitious, or what?