I ask this because he won in a democratic election. Did they think that he would pull a Stalin and stay in power for 30 years or so? Did they think there would be other elections? There was also a communist party that was running too named the KPD. Was it assumed that they would also end Germany's democracy?

Specifically, would a Muslim outside of Ottoman land view the Caliphate with any sort of authority? Would a Muslim in British India or Dutch Indonesia consider the Ottoman Caliph his spiritual leader?

I remember reading that in the Ming dynasty language manuals were created to help merchants deal with foreign traders. I can't remember what they were called, and I can't find anything about it anywhere. I appreciate your help!

I'm currently taking 20th Century History in High School, and although it's a decent course for our age group, the wording used in the textbooks are really vague at times and have confused me a bit.

When we study the rise of the Nazi Party, we learn about how after WW1 and the Treaty Of Versailles the German public felt humiliated and so began Nationalism gaining more traction. The textbook talks about how the Nazi Party "used" these feelings to gain popularity and billed themselves as militaristic because because of the public's need of a show of strength after such a devastating defeat. To what extent did the Nazis and Hitler control their image and target their ideologies to appeal to the public? Did they themselves actually think so radically? From what I understand, I'd say yes because of Hitler's efforts to carry out the Holocaust in secrecy, but I'd like to see some concrete evidence or source of his and other leaders feelings, which we aren't taught

An additional, but still related question. In perpetuating the stab-in-the-back myth, why were Jews the ones targeted so specifically? I understand the reasons for such a myth existing, what with the ruined pride and need to deflect blame, but why Jews?

Thank you so much to anyone who answers this, I'm really interested by the topic but I don't know any good sources to clear up questions or learn new information so finding this sub was great!

At what point did humans realize “hey it’s a different time over there than over here”? I feel like this is probably something that would never have been noticed back when things like letters took months to cross the seas.

I'm trying to find out how an individual from November 1944 would get to Buenos Aires from Philadelphia, by ship. Thanks!

I watched an FBI Files episode regarding counterterrorism in the 80's, particularly against hijackers of the Lebanese airplane w/ US citizens on it.

And it mentioned how the USA expanded its jurisdiction to fight terrorism around the globe in the 80s.

The show phrased it as sending a message to terrorists that the game has changed and the USA will go across the globe to find you, in order to dissuade any plots of terrorism.

Did this "message" truly cause a downward trend in terrorist attacks?

(Sorry if this is a tad frivolous, I mean no disrespect).

In 1998 I was offered 21 camels in exchange for my sister. This was in Egypt and, for the sake of simplicity, we’ll say the camels offered were of average health/value.

I’m trying to figure out what I could have earned, in monetary terms, presuming I could sell all of the 21 camels if I had sold them at an average rate, back then.

I’m after what I’d get back then, not adjusted for price, currency value or inflation today.

(It was a joke back then and i’d like to remind her about it during a quiz about her, before her wedding. - I do not condone of selling humans).

When emporer Constantine converted to Christianity and later when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire's official religion, was there an acceptance and understanding of its abrahamic oragins? Looking at earlier parts of the roman's empire history there had always seemed to be mistrust and conflict between Rome and Judea, was Christianity seen as a separate religion or was its earlier Jewish connections understood in Rome?

I’m doing some research for a school project about norsemen and I already know pretty much everything I need for it. BUT. I’m stuck between two fronts in the chapter about berserkers. Some people back the Hollywood idea of the blood thirsty junkie that would charge naked into battle biting his shield and so on. Some however, talk about the berserkers as “elite warriors” and “champions” (an idea that I personally find way more believable) distinguished from other warriors because of the bear skin worn over their gambesons/mail hauberks.

So, the thing is, none of the two “factions” seem to have any complete sources to back up their theories. I’m turning to you, my dear historians, to cast some light on this matter.

I have seen this pop up from time to time, and it is strongly hinted at in the TV show Rome. Was there ever evidence to prove or disprove his homosexuality?

I imagine someone with a lot of money could afford a place to keep that money, but if I'm a part of the working class and I want to save some money for a larger purchase, how would I go about doing that safely?

Pump action shotguns seem like an appropriate weapon for the close quarters of trenches. Why didn't the other belligerent countries on the Western Front think of using them earlier in the war?

A summer break can happen either way, so it seems like that wouldn't be the underlying cause, but people are weird.

And what place/state would you in that period find the most pure Wild West as according to how movies have romanticized it?

I'm assuming it has something to do with Ancient Egypt. As someone who is creeped out by cats in general, it scares me to think that there was a period of time in which I could have been born where it was widely believed you could kill a cat 8 times and it could still come back to maul you.

Thinking about that scene in Game of Thrones where Bronn fought a knight, and he won because he was more agile whereas the knight was not. Seems like in this situation armor would be a handicap, not a benefit.

To clarify, I recently read that the only naturally English food still eaten is the Turnip [possibly untrue as per the response below] and also that tomatoes only became part of Italian food after they were imported from the new world.

So I was wondering, how do we know what the food before this was like? Are there sourcing cooking manuals and what is he class breakdown of the food we know existed (e.g. Do we know what peasants ate more than aristocrats etc.)?

This is a pretty broad question but if anyone can contribute with any specific areas that would be great.