From signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk until the end of WW1, several new states in Eastern Europe were created. I’m interested in why were the countries in the Baltic split between Lithuania and the United Baltic Duchy, instead of leaving Estonia alone since it speaks a completely different language.

Were the areas mostly comprised of Russian-speaking citizens and thus the language didn’t matter? Were there geographic reasons leading to tis decision? Or something entirely different?

To add to the question: Can you even really answer such a question in some objective way or is it only based on a political-philosophical understanding of a right and left wing in politics?

Please don't understand me wrong, I don't want a discussion about whether these countries fit in with the classical Marxist-Leninist model of communist countries. While that is obviously a interesting question I already did some reading on the topic.

The countries I am speaking of are the usual suspects: The Soviet Union and Maoist China.

Viet Nam, maybe Cambodia under Pol Pot and the other smaller countries are obviously also interesting, but I feel like expanding the question in that way will simply compare to different historical and political situations in way to many different countries and will make the question unanswerable in anything but book form.

Maybe a little reason for asking: In the politics of today a lot of (mostly right wing) politicians and potential voters point to these two as 'left ideologies'. But I also know some more left leaning girls and guys who say they were actually way more right wing than people think and that you shouldn't compare them to the 'real left'. I don't want to judge the intentions behind this or infer a political position from this question. It is just that I realised that I don't really know whether you can even answer this question or if it just depends on your personal 'ideology'.

If not, what factors caused European public drinking culture (biergartens, public houses, etc.) to remain (if descended from older traditions) or develop (if they are innovations)?

Not really specific plot points, just that Russia had spies that embedded. That everyone thought they were normal Americans, that they had children, that they committed murders and so on.

Whenever I read about kingdoms or empires in the Middle East or India, they're usually referred to by the name of their ruling dynasty. The Abbasid Caliphate, the Saffarids, the Cholas.

But I've always been curious, is this how they thought of themselves, or are these just western exonyms? How would a medieval Muslim or Indian have referred to themselves or where they're from?

Which nation at the time owned the tanks with the highest top speed out of all tanks involved in the war?

I'm curious to as how much of a role did the early catholic church have in spreading christianity throughout europe. Was it mostly done voluntarily, were there forced conversions and conquest? Islam is stereotypical claimed to have spread through "conquest by the sword", would this be an accurate characterization of how christianity spread throughout Europe?

Why is it that the American Revolutionary War was fought with significantly smaller armies when compared to those fought in the Napoleonic wars just a couple of decades later?

Was there something special about the ship other than its size that caused people to believe that?

I've spent most of my life with no real long term goals or career interests, but recently i've taken a keen interest in periods of history that you can credit as 'birthing' civilization to a point where the first real dream I have is to be part of an excavation for things that are many thousands of years old, something about picking up/finding things nobody has seen for millenia is super cool to me. Ancient egypt/Greece, Sumeria/Mesopotamia etc.

But I have zero interest in more modern popular periods such as Vikings in Europe.

I'm 24 and live in the UK so I wouldn't qualify for free education anymore and i'm hesitant to pay a lot of money for a course I wouldn't be fully intrested in.

What does the educational path for archaeology look like? & If I would have to start studying 'general' archaology at what point could I choose which countries/time periods to focus on? bearing in mind I don't have any qualifications relating to history/science so I would be 'starting from the bottom' so to speak

From what I’ve seen, it was a civilian camp with ally POWs. Didn’t it just make Germany fight harder and make them seem in the right?

The battles of Leyte Gulf and Midway (WWII) were both decisive turning point battles in the Pacific Theater. I'd like to know which the historical community deems to be a bigger success overall for the US Campaign.

It went from being the biggest city in the world, capital of empires, to an important city, to a city, to being so unimportant that it seems it was just abandoned one day, what happened?