Was there any reason to fly poultry and a handful of musk melons from Shanghai to somewhere due east of Chungking in 1935?

For English I am going to write a speech arguing why the Confederate flag is an undeniable symbol of racism. I already know how I can use the secessional constitutions of Southern states for Civil War-era use, and that the flag became associated with the KKK and anti-civil rights movement. However, I would greatly appreciate some writings, interviews, etc. which show how white supremacists intentionally used the flag to represent segregation and other racist measures.

Hi everyone, first time/long time. I understand what led to the erection of the wall, but the specifics will typically end at "well, Berlin and Germany was split based on territories invaded by the Soviets, and by the Western Allies". As a result, I just always assumed that the wall was based on the final positions of the Soviet army the moment Germany capitulated, but since Berlin, and Germany as a whole was only formally split a few years later, I'm wondering who drew "the line in the sand" and why that specific path was chosen. If you walk along the remnants of the wall, you'll notice that it zig zags through streets, neighbourhoods, wooded area, with little rhyme or reason (at least from the POV of someone who only knows modern day Berlin). There aren't really the natural border markers you'd typically see like a river, or forest or anything that would mark an obvious demarcation between the east and west.

Anyways, tl;dr: how was the precise location of the Berlin Wall decided?

I've mainly seen this in old Warner Bros. cartoons or comics from the early to mid-20th century. When did Napoleon go from being seen as a historical figure to shorthand for an mentally unsound person? If it's his perceived megalomania that caused this association, why don't we see other would-be world conquerors, like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, in the same light?

I was recently looking that east german military footage and besides the naval uniforms everything had a german or in my opinion a fascist look to it. comparing this to soviet and eastern bloc countries they look nothing alike.

[deleted]

Dear Reddit,

While studying for my history exam next month I stumbled unto something peculiar. In the French revelution, during his trial, Louis XVI is called citizen Capet. I originanally thought this was his Family name, his Dynasty. However, after some backtracking I disvovered that Louis's dynast was called Bourbon ad that the Capet-dynasty ruled France 300 years earlier. Could someone explain this?

Despite being a small city-state surrounded by large empire Venice dominated its neighbors and became an empire itself.

We often hear tales about castle rife with archers on the walls and swordsmen ready to defend should the walls breach. All while the lord and their court cover in keep.

How many people usually lived in the castles of old, and did any lonely lord ever accidentally leave the portcullis down when visiting the local brothel?

The fort is estimated to have had over 1,000 native residents and stretched over 5 acres. I believe the description of it as being built in a European style cake from Nathaniel Philbrick’s book Mayflower. After the fall of this fort, did Native Americans ever attempt to construct “forts” or other defensive positions again?

Okay, so the US Civil War is a bit of a controversial topic, and as a result a lot of documentaries and books on it are biased in one way or the other. (And by that I mean biased in favor of the Confederacy, at least in my experience.) Anyway, I was wondering if y'all could recommend some works on the Civil War that cover the military history, but also don't go all "The civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about something else that they just forgot to mention in the cornerstone speech, the declarations of secession, etc."

Preferably these works would be not too dry, and would be understandable to someone whose knowledge of the period boils down to "Sherman was responsible for the amazing military innovation of stealing everything a plantation owner had before setting his plantation on fire instead of just setting the plantation on fire right away."

Okay, so due to the failings of the American school system, I really don't know much about the Napoleonic wars other than "Napoleon declared war on every country in Europe simultaneously, and somehow it almost worked out." Anyway, that's enough to get me interested, so I was wondering if the kind folks at ask historians could recommend some good books on the subject. Preferably ones that aren't too dry, and would be understandable to someone who has very little knowledge of the era.

One of the Cabinet Rap Battles in Hamilton is about whether or not America should send troops/aid to help the French in their Revolution, with Jefferson arguing that they should because the French had supported the Americans. However, had the Americans intervened, would it not have been in support of the government, rather than the revolting people i.e. rather in contrast to the popular uprising that the Americans presumably considered their revolution to be? Am I misinterpreting, or is the whole thing just simplified for the case of the story?

Didn't the Americans already destroy multiple Japanese cities using conventional bombs? Was there something completely different with using an atomic weapon to destroy a city vs. spending a couple of days just bombing the hell out of a city?

What chores would I have to do? Does our house/flat have a maid? My Dad is a policeman. Does my mum need a job too? What did kids do before TV/video games? (researching for a fictional book - any online resources would be very useful!)

Today is the annual commemoration day of the Armenian Genocide and "#24Nisan1915" is now trending on Turkish Twitter. I was interested to see what people were writing, and it is mostly people glorifying and paying their respects to the three main architects of the Armenian Genocide: Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha and Djemal Pasha. Several prominent Turkish politicians have also posted photos of Enver Pasha as a tribute, which I found strange.

I'm just wondering, why are they respected in Turkey today? I thought these three men were hated by the early government of Turkey, even viewed as traitors, and Ataturk thought they were all bad? I have noticed there are many streets and schools in Turkey named after the 'Three Pashas' (Enver, Talaat and Djemal).

Why would people (including politicians) today in Turkey have a totally different view of these 'Three Pashas' from how Ataturk and the early Turkish Republic viewed them?

Specifically, the ideological justification. Were things like "White Man's Burden" and "Civilizing/Christianizing Mission" still used despite Ethiopia being a very old Christian country, and the former role Ethiopia had in the western imagination (e.g. the legend of Prester John).

Why did the victors of WWI not just incorporate the 'conquered' territories to their already established colonial structures, like the British Empire and French West Africa? More specific: In the case of French and British Togoland (former German Togoland), why didn't Britain incorporate the Western part of Togoland into the Gold Coast right after WWI and why didn't the France do the same thing with its conquered territories in eastern Togoland? Why did they agree to 'only' administer these territories in a mandate system if they could have 'had it all'?

In China, we are taught that the disaster that is the Great Leap Forward is caused mainly by foreign intervention (economic sanctions on the CCP for instance), the withdrawal of Soviet support, natural famines etc., and Mao himself is '70% right, 30% wrong'.

I am aware that when it comes to history, there is no definitive answer for questions like this. Yet still, can Mao be blamed solely for what happened during the Great Leap Forward, or in other words, to what extent can he be blamed?

I appreciate any answer and would also love to hear any additional resources I can check out. Cheers!

[deleted]

[deleted]

So in middle through high school everyone kept forgetting Italy was in the axis. Mostly because they sucked. They couldn't take out Greece, they couldn't hold Africa, and they couldn't seem to stop getting slapped around be everyone. My question is why did Italy suck so much. With how history is these days it's kind of hard to tell if Italy has just been memed all to hell and they weren't that bad or what. Thank you so much in advance!