I asked this question around a year ago and got no replies. Hoping for better luck this time.

When Japan, Germany, and Italy were giving their speeches for what a total victory looked like what sort of territorial gains, renown, or resources were the proverbial carrot to their populace?

During the First World War, soldiers fighting under the flag of the German Empire believed they were fighting for freedom.

But, how truly free was the German Empire? What was their government like? I know it possessed the Reichstag and was led by the Kaiser, but I was always curious about how the German Empire's government functioned.

I just read an article about the vote on recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and it got me wondering about the situation in general.

Can someone summarize how that situation got to where it is now? I have a surface knowledge of Israel history the last 60 years or so but I have a hard time understanding why Israel’s status is so debatable.

Jerusalem was literally the capital of Israel for hundreds of years, why aren’t they allowed to claim it officially?

EDIT: I got a message about the whole ELI5 thing in the title, I suppose would appreciate an in depth answer but hopefully it will be straight forward.

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but....I found an old metal plate with someone's name, maybe SSN, and some other mailing I think are from the unit and base they were assigned to. I would love to try and find more information on this and possibly return it to the family whom it may have once belonged to.

I have often heard the story that Stalin once faked a heart attack, and when his bodyguards rushed in to save him he had. them shot. This story seems quite absurd, and I can't remember hearing it from a reliable source. Is there any truth to this myth?

A lot of my friends, who’re mainly from the U.K. And Australia tell me that WWII would’ve ended in favor of the allies whether the U.S. had interfered or not. My main question is whether this is true? And if so what motivation besides Pearl Harbor sparked American interest in to joining?

From my reading on American history, maintaining a standing army was controversial during the early republic and generally remained so until WWII (although I may be conflating this issue with isolationism, especially after the Civil War). When considering that most of the political issues that led to the opposition of a large standing army (e.g., financial cost, isolationism, "states' rights") are still professed by the military's most adamant supporters, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain it.

I realize that one level, the answer to this question is obvious: Because ancient aliens theories are pseudohistorical nonsense.

But the "ancient aliens" thesis shares characteristics with other pseudohistorical movements that HAVE recruited people with PhDs, or other significant historical training, as apologists. (Young Earth creationism, Jesus mythicism, Afrocentrism, Nazi revisionism, etc.) The ancient aliens thesis is a belief system with a lot of really committed people behind it. It includes thousands of people in its official organization, and millions of people who consume its "scholarship". In some quarters, it verges on a religion.

Was it just luck of the draw that some of the other pseudohistorical theories roped in trained historians, while the aliens thesis didn't?

EDIT: Robert Temple, who wrote The Sirius Mystery, was apparently a historian of science -- although not an ancient historian. (A bit like how some of the Jesus mythicists have PhDs in fields outside of Classics, New Testament Studies, etc.)

(For argument's sake, take "modern" to mean 1929 onwards, which was the year the Third Geneva Convention [relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War] was introduced.)

I forget which book it was in either Peter Frankopan's The Silk Roads or Beckworth' Empires of the Silk Roads by one of them spoke about a Christian Persian church with its own bishops etc. what information do we know about this?

Please let me know if I am making an obvious mistake here, as I don't know the subject.

As far as I understand, the colonies had their own small armies, used to protect themselves against native americans, called Rangers.

Later when the colonies decided to claim independence, they placed George Washington in control of a Federal army.

As a side: Apparently George Washington didn't trust the Rangers, thinking some of them are English spies.

What I don't understand - Why didn't the 13 colonies strengthen their Rangers, and have them fight the English? How did they trust a Federal Military more than their own?

Not sure if this is the right sub for this, but it doesn't seem to break ny rules, so here goes.

I've heard some interesting stories about the native people of some Pacific islands who tell stories of small, hairy ape-like men who once lived there. Apparently, some historians believe this could refer to a protohuman species which co-existed with humans tens of thousands of years ago. This seems like a bit of a stretch to me, considering how (relatively) quickly myths and religions seem to change over time. However, have there been any studies on how far back oral tradition can be considered accurate?

I'd defer to European scholars on this, or even fencing experts, but it seems pretty ludicrous to me that if you could wield a sword capably with one hand, that you'd use the other to brandish yet another sword. A shield seems like a much safer bet, or even a dagger (as I've seen in some fencing texts), as it would allow a person to parry or block a strike much more effectively in concert with offensive sword strikes. Presumably the second sword would increase a person's offensive capability (if the purpose was defensive, why not use a shield?), but could that ever really be the case? I know different kinds of swords are used differently (and some swords actually work better in application if wielded with both hands), but is the dual-wielding sword thing you sometimes see in movies just that, a Hollywood creation with no basis in history? Is there any historical evidence of a person using two swords in combat or a duel?

I assume not all knights followed the same pattern, but if I learned how to use, say, a mace, would I use exclusively that weapon, or change based on the situation? Would I regularly train with many different types of weapon?

I understand that he had an amazing track record as far as winning battles and I know that he was a great field commander in that he walked among his troops to inspire them and boost morale. However, I am having a hard time finding information on what tactics/ maneuvers he used within the battle itself that made him such a respected general. I only know vaguely that his armies were notorious for being able to cross extended distances relatively quickly thus cutting off various parts of the coalition, but I don't understand how he managed to do this nor how he managed to win so many battles when he was outnumbered. I would appreciate it if you could also point me towards some videos that detail his battlefield tactics and why they were so effective. Thanks

By and large even indigenous people, in very warm climates, with little to no outside influence and with no qualms about the human form still insist on wearing cloths of some sort.

Google isn't really clear about this

I'm referring to the medieval Kingdom of Italy, not the 19th century one.

I've searched through the FAQ and there doesn't seem to be a question addressing the complacency of everyone involved in the Holocaust, and thought it might be productive to ask here.

The more I delve into the appalling crimes of the Holocaust and Generalplan Ost, the more I find it hard to believe that this immense effort, with full knowledge and contribution by hundreds of thousands of people in the form of commandants/staff, guards, construction workers, etc went absolutely unresisted by all actors in the industrial-scale murder of over 11 million people.

From reading many separate sources, the only major citation I've found of German actors in the plan having knowledge of what they were doing was even wrong were certain members of the Einsatzgruppen, who were given to severe alcoholism and suicide to repress/cope with memories of their daily killing of civilians in the open.

My question is how did this massive effort with so many different moving parts continue on unresisted until the collapse of the German state? Or was state control over this effort just so tightly controlled that only those most loyal/indoctrinated were able to have knowledge and participate? As far as my knowledge goes there was no individual who blew the whistle or tried to make this information available to the outside such as the Allied Powers, and only exceedingly few contributors such as camp guards and staff who thought that what was happening was morally wrong.

To my knowledge the lyric "He took her down to Chinatown and taught her how to kick the gong around" reference opium use.