[deleted]

The second Italo-Ethiopian war is considered to be one of the great failures of the League of Nations, as their passivity and negligence lead to the downfall of one of its own members.

In the years following, the Spanish Civil War broke out, and the League of Nations failed to intervene again... the now exiled Ethiopian government (and emporer) where still present, but what was their position when confronted with another episode of negligence towards an un-democratic political overthrow?

I, along with many on this sub, am a lurker who loves his history, but I am also not in any means a historian. Often, however, I see questions that are a couple days old which I know the short answer to but have neither a previous answer nor sources I can really refer to, so I don’t answer. Would it ever be acceptable to PM a short answer? I know this could be very abused by users with biases to spread misinformation, and that sometimes questions can take a while to be answered, but it’s also a little depressing to not be able to help a little. Thoughts on this?

When did the tradition of building sand castles at the beach begin, and was there a period where people built all sorts of sand structures before settling on castles as the thing?

[deleted]

im having an important school assignment where im supposed to dive into the crisis of the north and south-korea crisis/war/conflicts after 1990... and im sort of clueless on what i should be including in my assignment. any must-have parts that i should include within my assignment, or? anything specific? fields? situations? not sure why the teacher said after 1990 though...

i hope you can give me some pointers. im the only one who got an individual project, so while the rest of my classmates are in groups, i stand alone on this.

i would greatly appreciate some advises on this. thanks a lot in advance!

I can't find a decent answer for this anywhere. Basically up to and including the early parts of the 19th century France had a very large population compared to other European nations, part of the reason why it did so well militarily. Wikipedia even states that France was more populous than Russia before 1795, and if you look at France from around the 1600s during the reign of Louis XIV up to Napoleon coming to power in the 1790s, this demographic advantage allowed it to expand its borders frequently, and become the leading power in Europe.

However, starting in the early 19th century, the growth of French population stagnated in comparison to the other powers. This occurred despite the fact that the UK, Germany and others suffered population loss due to emigration to North America, Australia and New Zealand, or other places around the world.

This correspondingly had an impact on France's ability to project power. In my reading concerning the World Wars, I remember coming across the statistic that starting out from rough parity during the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-71, by WW1 there were 1.6 German men of military age to every 1 Frenchman. This resulted in France becoming a highly militarized society including a 3-year national service period starting in 1913, as well as 80% of Frenchmen being retained for national service compared to about 50% in Germany. I believe this was basically the only way for France to match the size of the German army. With the losses incurred in the First World War, this disparity grew to an imbalance of 2 to 1 men of military age by the time of the Second World War.

So what caused this demographic decline? What are the leading theories and what are the most plausible reasons for it? I've heard of people saying that the revolutionary ideals having an effect but I've never really found a coherent answer that makes sense.

Thankyou.

Hello everyone,

I am highly interested in getting a good overall view and understanding of what happened in Europe after the fall of Rome (say beginning in the dark ages/middle ages up to say 19th or 20th century). I have been watching different videos and documentaries trying to get educated and I feel like it would be so much more fulfilling if everything would fall together like a puzzle and make sense.

Is there a great book out there that does a good job of this? Is it even possible to get a decent overview of that entire time period within one or maybe even a few books? Or is that too much of a time span to focus on all at once?

Thanks for your help in advance!

More on the subject, how long did it take for the ottomans to know that a new continent was found?

As they didn't have to follow any Pope's order or the Tordesillas treaty, did they ever consider planing a mission to trade with, conquer, colonize or explore the new region?

When Australian historians discuss Australian military involvement in Vietnam, a very common comment is that Australian troops took issue with US army tactics. Having just come out of jungle warfare in Malaysia and Indonesia, Australians had tactics like 'two weeks in, two days out', which reduced the need for resupply, and focused on stealth ambush patrols to reduce casualties. They considered American methods ineffective and far more dangerous, and accused the US military of needlessly wasting lives, and thus somewhat resisted US military command.

So my question is, how did Americans adapt their infantry tactics to suit jungle warfare over time, and would the US Army have been willing to listen to advice from allied forces?

Im writing a book and i intended for the characters to be going to school for law but upon some research it seems that law classes were not a thing. So im just trying to figure out how they would go about becoming a lawyer.

And its also important to that they go to college so what classes where available to students.

The East German state committed what seems like serious human rights violations against its own people. Notably an unprecedented level surveillance and restrictions of freedoms. I know a lot of Stasi officers were prosecuted, but not much more. Were there similar trials to the ones after the second world war?

Specifically during the second world war, but any details of afterward are welcome as well

When did people start to call Lacedemonians Spartans instead? And historically when people specifically say "spartans" or "Lacedemonians", what groups of people are they exactly referring to?

Why did the people not calling the Athenians Atticans?

Most popular history I’ve read tends to attribute the success of the Protestant Reformation to the movable type printing press. I haven’t actually read much history explicitly challenging the idea that that the printing press was key to the success of the Protestant Reformation, but it seems suspicious to me.

I had some stuff written about why I regarded the link with suspicion, but I realized it was veering away from actually asking a question and more toward soapboxing (Although I still might post (parts of?) it if anyone asks why I find it dubious), so I'll just ask: do most historians attribute the success of the Protestant Reformation to the printing press to the same degree as more general audience histories?

I'm reading the Trail of Tears and it seems like white Europeans/New Americans had a lot of power over Native Americans, especially in the first half of the 1800's. It's almost as if they chose to only use Native Americans that were being punished as slaves but continued to own substantially more black slaves. What made owning black slaves the better choice than enslaving entire Native American populations?