It seems agreed that most of global population would be wiped out if the events took a turn. What kinds of actions would lead to massive responses by both countries?

I'm referring to his book The Young Hitler I Knew published in 1955.

I know that north African countries like Egypt developed well along with the European nations. But was there a certain reason or event that caused European nations to develop faster compared to central African nations? When Rome had control of countries like England, the English were "savages/barbarians" that hadn't developed advanced road ways and buildings like the Romans so they were in a state similar to African countries. So how is it that countries like England began to progress so rapidly compared to African nations when they had the same amount of time starting from the same point?

In the Lone Wolf and Cub series there is a clan (Kuroda, IIRC) that wears a mask with a moustache on it to intimidate their enemies. I can imagine it would have been costly to craft masks like these for the common soldier, so who exactly was allowed to wear them? The clan leader and his commanding officers?

I understand that secession from the Union was popular in the south and especially the political class. However, were there any political groups that formed governments like in a free france kinda way?

It goes as such: "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) as saying: You shall fight in the hours to come against a nation wearing shoes made of hair and faces like hammered shields, with red complexion and small eyes."

Is the text describing the mongols, what with their furry garments and Asian physical features, or is that just a coincidence? Would the Arabs have known of the existence of the Mongols before the Mongol Empire reached the Middle East?

I've heard mention that one thing that made the Romans stand out above many of their adversaries and contemporaries was their practice of making relatively well fortified encampments while on campaigns.

How exactly did they construct these temporary forts? What sort of defenses did they consist of? Were they enough to hole up in for a siege of sorts, or did they act more like a funnel to limit how many enemies could engage their camp at one time?

The Romans existed for a long time. I don't know if this practice changed significantly or not through out that whole period, but if it did, and you guys need more specificity, I'm mostly interested in Caesar's era. Thanks, guys.

It seems like in the Middle Ages land constantly changed hands through conquest, inheritance, sometimes purchase, but how did the people who lived on this land deal with the change? If France conquered an English village for example, would the Englishmen move to a different village that's still English, and Frenchmen move in to occupy the land? Or did they just think "I guess I'm French now." What if they didn't speak the language of the new kingdom? What if they weren't the same religion?

They already beat the French military and had the upper hand most of the time, they could've easily taken more land. Why didn't they do it?

despite Europeans being lower than Arabs and Turks in racial hierachy?

Kissing is ubiquitous now, of course, as a sign of intimate affection; I don't think I'm aware of any cultures currently extant that don't kiss in romantic/sexual/intimate settings.

But was this always true? I found myself wondering as I read a book set in the Roman Empire, and then the curiosity cropped up again when watching a Western film. I also dimly recall that when I read historical texts like Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Civili, Homer's Iliad or the Bible, there's mention of kissing, both in romantic and less romantic settings. It can be hard to tell if, in the case of the book set in the Roman Empire (for example), the modern author made a romantic scene fit our idea of what would appeal (the kissing, touching, sex, etc.), as opposed to how they actually showed affection in that culture and period.

To my mind it seems like a societal, and not an evolutionary behavior -- there's no reproductive reason we do it; it's a social sign of affection, love, lust, etc. Yet, it's everywhere, and seems so natural to do -- anecdotally, even when young, I felt I 'wanted' to kiss the people I was attracted to on a subconscious level, and I didn't have to learn (it seems) how it 'worked' or why I'd want to do so, as was the case with sex or other forms of intimacy to a prepubescent boy.

So, do we have any idea about:

• When this became the norm
• What the history of it is
• If it's a learned behavior or somehow innate and natural
• If there are any cultures that don't or didn't have men and women kissing to display romantic affection

Thanks in advance, AskHistorians, as always!

A friend of mine recently listened to the "History in an Hour" on the life of Mussolini, and is now claiming that it is historical fact that fascism is a "Marxist ideology" because Mussolini was at one point part of the socialist party; and once he fell out with the socialists he "based fascism in socialist thought."

Now the life of Mussolini is not something I'm incredibly familiar with, but I find this claim incredibly dubious. I'm not sure if this is the best subreddit to pose this kind of question, so if not could you point me in the right direction?

Catholic church sometimes used excommunication as a political tool. Has it ever happened that the people dealing with (or rulers who would be in position to use force against them) the "heretics" just said "meh" and didn't do anything? Has a call to a crusade ever been ignored? Did the pope ever backtrack on excommunicating people without them having to repent?