Obviously some of the factions had relatively reliable foreign support such as the Kuomintang with the Soviets and later the Germans and the Fengtian clique was 'sponsored' by the Japanese but how did many of the other Cliques like the Anhui, Ma or the Sichuan and Guangdong Warlords keep their men supplied with weapons and ammunition to wage their wars?

Did they subsist on occasional bouts of foreign support or were their independent arms dealers for them to buy their needed equipment from?

I imagine they had people who would take care of their clothes and "dress" them. I wonder how much clothes they took, especially on ocean voyages and international trips.

My dad has seen a lot of history unfold before his very eyes. He witnessed the tummultous 60s, was almost sent to Vietnam, and was a big part of the tech boom of the 1980s and 1990s. He's been all around the world constantly for almost 40 years now, and is a wealth of information on the history and politics of the United States as well as many other countries he has traveled to extensively (mostly Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and China)

With all that being said, he is a very politically opinionated man. He tells objective facts, but always tells you his opinion of it afterwards.

If I see a thread that relates to one of my dad's stories from back in the day, is it valid to construct an answer and put "and my dad said 'x' about that because he was there in 'this' capacity"?

I'd love to ask about many more barbarian tribes, but I've read some conflicting things.

I'm talking about the scene when the main protagonist comes across a small French colony in the heart of the jungle and the host at the dinner table is recounting his experiences of the Vietnam war.

Since the Holocaust mobilized so many people, workers etc... Why didn't Germany waited for their victory, at least over the USSR, to use all those resources and manpower ?

How were Germans and Italians treated during that time?

[deleted]

I think its an oboe.... you know what I'm talking about.

I understand that there is some disagreement in regards to the necessity of the attacks. However, I have encountered some people lately that seem to think that diplomacy was an option. Was there any hope of that at all?

I've heard it from Tim Duncan and Extra History, among others, that Russia wanted an alliance in Europe after losing the Crimean war. What happened? Why wouldn't Germany prioritize an allegiance with Russia, with its vast manpower, over the weak and rebellious Austria-Hungary? Thank you, love this subreddit!

I've heard both that "collectivisation never works" and that "it worked in Burkina Faso".

I understand that the famines in the USSR continue to be a controversial and finger-pointing subject, and I don't want to get into ideological warfare here.

I would just like to know, as neutrally as possible, what was the difference between these two situations?

[deleted]

I’ve heard before that most of stuff on ninjas is just made up like how ninjas had a rebellion against samurai.

But I just wanna he sure

Draw bridges seem to be a staple of the castle era. when my kids build sand castles they automatically add moats and draw bridges. But were they common? Building bridges seems hard enough. Building bridges on hinges as a security measure during the castle era seems like a huge undertaking. Did this happen a few times and entered into lore, or were draw bridges an actual pervasive thing?

Visualizations of the Founding Fathers signing the Declaration often portrays them wearing formal coats and powdered wigs.

As a resident of Philadelphia it boggles my mind to think of anybody wearing that kind of clothing in a building that has no air-conditioning in July. The summer heat is insufferable and oppressive.

So that makes me wonder if the Founding Fathers actually wore those heavy layers in July, or if this image is a romanticized or idealized vision?

I'm not saying that all other Elizabethan playwrights were bad, I'm just curious what is the worst play that we still have the full text of.

I'm particularly interested in comparative treatments of fascism that were published after 2004 and thus reflect recent scholarship.