[deleted]

In my U.S. textbook the U.S. debt policy, its financial complications, and its diplomatic effects were briefly discussed, ending with the summary that eventually no country ever fully paid its debts, except for “brave little Finland [in 1976]”. What circumstances led for Finland of all countries to repay its debt over 58 years?

EDIT: I have the quote from my textbook (American Pageant). “President Herbert Hoover declared a one-year debt moratorium in 1931, and before long all the debtors had defaulted — except ‘honest little Finland,’ which struggled along making payments until the last of its debt was discharged in 1976.”. I can dig into my textbooks citations for more info but not tonight as its not on me.

Were castles in the (early) 1400s generally whitewashed and painted on the inside walls? More specifically, I want to know about Bohemia/Czech republic.

Thanks in advance.

[deleted]

These two groups seem to often be mentioned briefly in connection with Spanish and Italian Fascism. But apart from the Carlists being some kind of royalist faction and the Futurists some kind of artistic movement, their identity and role never seem very clear.

The theory that the CIA were involved in the distribution of crack to low income black neighbourhoods in the 1980s interests me, but I want to know how much validity there is to this claim, or whether it’s just another crackpot theory

Hello everyone!

I have been interested in Nationalism for some time now and have recently decided to start delving into professional works about it. So following this I have read 'Imagined Communities' by Benedict Anderson and 'National Identity' by Anthony D. Smith and some other minor articles on the subject. Also I am aware of The Nationalism Project and I have read some of the threads on nationalism under this subreddit. My question for you is which work should I read next? My immediate options for major works are 'Nations and Nationalism since 1780' from Eric Hobsbawm, 'Nations and Nationalism' from Ernest Gellner or 'Nationalism Reframed' by Rogers Brubaker. One other option would be to read 'Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era' by Anthony D. Smith before one of the other major works, as it perhaps would allow me to more closely Smith's arguments since I just finished reading National Identity yesterday.

Lastly, feel free to provide any clarifications/distinctions you may feel are important! Thank you for your help!

how come soldiers during the Cambodian genocide can do these awful crimes that go against human nature, but they wouldn't have dreamed of doing it if there was no war? I'm trying to write a paper on this, but i don't know how and where to start

I want to restrict this specifically to ordinary speech, as I am well aware of then-contemporary lingering uses of "thou" and "thee" in fossilized legal and religious language, as well as in certain types of literature.

Let's say Hitler chose to surrender rather than commit suicide. Did the allies have any plans for him? Would he be executed like other high ranking Nazis? Or would he have been kept as an example of the failing Nazi ideology?

Can anyone recommend books that provide comprehensive introductions to the types of clothing in ancient Greece and Rome? I'm especially interested in women's clothing.

I am interested in those time periods specifically about Sweden. Basically the 1611-1721 time period, I would like some thing with detail but not hard to read, but please don't exclude any books regardless.

Thank you

The dawn of the second millenium was met with many theories about the millenium bug and other theories of mass confusion and difficulties. How was the dawn of the first millenium (1000 AD) viewed before it occurred? Was there as much of a reaction by the general public and/or policymakers? Was it celebrated in any special way? I am also wondering about the impact of differing calendars between countries of the world. How/when were monumental years celebrated in countries that used a lunar calendar? Were they celebrated at all?

I'd heard previously that Buddhism used to be a very dominant belief system in India, but at some point the Buddhist community in India markedly shrank. This seems unusual to me, as some of Buddhism's holiest sites are in India and it's the place where the religion was born. The only reason I was given was that a series of Hindu thinkers provided a number of arguments that served to convince Buddhists that they were wrong, but this doesn't strike me as a satisfactory explanation, because I don't think communities are, in general, the sort of things that can be "convinced" like individual people, and because the other examples of religious disappearance I can think of are largely due to policy prescriptions, persecution, or the aftereffects of historical events.

I don't really understand what Claudius means when he says, "I take all the young men whom I see before me; that they are senators should cause no more regret than Persicus feels—a most noble man and my friend—when he reads among the images of his ancestors the name of Allobrogicus..."

Why would he feel regret that the men before him are senators? Because these senators are young men? Because he is saying what he is saying in front of the Senate, and they may not agree with him? Because some of the senators are foreigners/Gauls/what have you? I think I'm missing some context.

Also, when he says, “It is now time, Tiberius Caesar Germanicus, to reveal to the conscript fathers where your speech is leading: for now you have come to the farthest borders of Galiia Narbonensis,” is he speaking figuratively? Is this a quip about his going off topic?

Lastly, based on my interpretation of these two passages, I get the vibe that he is kind of witty and perceptive. Something I wouldn't expect from the stuttering, socially awkward Claudius that so many speak of. Do you agree with me?

This is the very first time I've looked at Claudius' speech, and I'm not very familiar with ancient sources, so these may be silly questions. If anybody can share some insight with me I'd really appreciate it!

Thanks!

My husband is half Jewish, I am not Jewish at all. His father is fully Jewish. His mother isn’t. We have a child also. That’s the biological stuff.

I know household stuff made a difference too, so here ‘s that: We all live together, including my father in law’s mother (so she’s Jewish too). Nothing really religious goes on besides great-grandma not eating pork. We do eat Jewish food like that Matzoh bread and low key participant in Jewish holidays, basically meaning we do it for fun and not really because it’s considered that important. Christmas and Easter is celebrated with the same attitude.

So what would have happened to us as a family? I know nothing good, but I mean specifically.

I looked at an ethnic map of Europe in 1933 and things were pretty German back then. The Soviets took a lot of ethnic German land which has been German for centuries, I would understand if they took all of east Prussia and Silesia, but pushing the border to the Neisse and Oder seems weird to me, I understand it was a (pretty just) punishment for Nazi crimes but what were the other Soviet considerations when doing that? did the west protest?