The eastern front saw some of the most horrific fighting of the war. Between the brutal nature of the fighting, the atrocities committed by both sides and the crimes against humanity committed against civilians, it seems there must have been major psychological fallout after the war.

How did the remaining population deal with the inevitable mental illnesses spawned by the war itself?

The first is widely known while the other is a relatively obscure episode that even most Spaniards ignore. They seem to be comparable in terms of human and material losses, so are there other reasons that could explain the difference?

I've been playing a turn based strategy game called Unity of Command which focuses on that fated German summer campaign in 1942 towards the Caucasus mountains (Operation Edelweiss) and Stalingrad. It's a little fascinating to me that the Germans instead of trying again to get to Moscow, decided to go towards the Soviet Union's source of oil. This certainly took the Soviets by surprise who were expecting a drive towards Moscow themselves which allowed the Germans to make some major initial gains.

I think this really shows how important oil was in German strategic thinking. Was it really that necessary to push for oil in the Soviet Union and risk overextending? Weren't the Romanian oil fields and synthetic oil production enough?

[deleted]

To quote;

"...the famine was not intentional. It resulted from Stalin's policies of forced collectivization-dekulakization, as well as the pitiless and incompetent management of the sowing and procurement campaigns, all of which put the country on a knife-edge, highly susceptible to drought and sudden torrential rains. Stalin appears to have genuinely imagined that increasing the scale of farms, mechanization, and collective efficiency would boost agricultural output. He dismissed the loss of better-off peasants from villages, only belatedly recognized the crucial role of incentives, and wildly overestimated the influx of machines. He twice deluded himself - partly from false reporting by frightened statisticians, partly from his own magical thinking - that the country was on the verge of a recovery harvest."

Kotkin goes on to say that Stalin himself approved of multiple reductions in grain exports and reduced grain collection quotas for a number of areas, including Ukraine and Kazakh autonomous republic.

What was the lowest class that could have reasonably attained a horse in Anglo-Saxon England? For example, could a Ceorl have attained a pack horse? Would it be reasonable for a Craftsman to have owned a riding horse? Broad or specific answers are both greatly appreciated.

If possible, any comparisons to Norman culture would also be appreciated, but not expected.

The capital of Illinois is Springfield (not Chicago), the capital of NY is Albany (not NYC), the capital of Washington is Olympia (not Seattle) and the capital of California is Sacramento while it has such amazing cities. Springfield and Albany are almost villages and yet they hare capitals.

There are some that I think I understand. For example, Baton Rouge or Richmond might have been financial powerhouses back in the day but what's the reason behind such odd choices for NY, Florida, Illinois etc?

A joke from the series mentioned him

Just a question out of curiosity, after the war generals who fought in the war like Ike Eisenhower and Charles de Gauille became presidents of USA and France, did Montgomery ever plan to run for public office?

[deleted]

So Stalin disliked Poles and Prussians, so he moved them both west.

How DDR justified loss of east prussia, etc to Poland to it´s citizens? I know, it was a dictatorship, but questions must be asked and answered, even their answers are incorrect, even in a dictatorship. Thanks.

The thought just popped up in my head that somebody had to decide that enough had happened that we should start teaching US History. Compared to other countries, the US is still pretty young so is it odd that we have already started teaching the History of our country?

Hello! So, I am super confused about the pyramids. I’ve heard tons of stuff about them:

They were built by slaves v.s. they weren’t, they were built before the Great Flood that happens in the Bible v.s. they were built after, they were burial monuments for prominent Egyptian leaders v.s. they were used as laboratories for studying stuff.

But I basically want to know why they were built, how they were built, and when they were built.

Are there any stats on this? I'd also be interested in any similar information on other Latin American countries.

Historiographically speaking, it appears that when discussing art, literature, politics, important figures, there is an emphasis on people who lived in urban centers; I understand this may be due to the nature of sources and literacy, but I was wondering if historians acknowledge this as the case?

Many of these battles are extremely scarce on details on the battles themselves which is frustrating

One example is Assaye in 1804 where the British being outnumbered 3:1 and the Indians having FAR more artillery pieces on hand to bombard the British, were able to rout he Marathas from the field.

Another is Argaon where the British were once again heavily outnumbered but somehow claimed victory

There's been some controversy about the new PC game Kingdom Come: Deliverance not including people of color. It's historically set in Bohemia in 1403. Just how diverse was that region at that time?