I have two questions. One is very specific and one is very general. I've been reading about the Demmin suicides in 1945 in response to the Soviets invading and rampaging. I know that they were all killing themselves BEFORE the soviets got a chance to kill them and rape them. I want to know, if it is possible to know the numbers, how many people committed suicide AFTER they were raped by the soviets. It doesn't seem like it was a very frequent occurrence.

In general, how many people did commit suicide after the war? Not just nazi Germany, the world. The war took away so many people's lives and family members and people's entire homes and cities were destroyed along with their pride, motivation, dignity. It seems reasonable to assume that many would have taken that option but I don't see very mush information and what little I can find makes it seem like not very many.

I just recently found out they made sliced bread illegal in the US in 1943. Why did they do this? Bread itself was fine, just selling it sliced was a crime, apparently. This seems totally nonsensical to me. Can someone explain the reasoning behind it?

I've been on a Battlefield 1 kick again following the recent Russian DLC, but it's also reminded me that despite the game's willingness to make a nod to the contributions of lesser-known groups in the war, such as African or Indian colonial troops or the Women's Battalion of Death, it does not talk much about those who came from East Asia (unless if say Japan ends up featured in a later DLC).

Thus, like the title asks, my question is what was it like to be one of these soldiers from East Asia? How did these soldiers deal with the racial dynamics (both with whites and other minorities, when it came to befriending or interacting with them, relationships with women, or getting into racially-motivated fistfights and brawls) or the political situation of the time? How did they feel fighting for/against countries that colonized or exploited them (or were perceived to)? Were there differences between the experiences of men who came from more elite backgrounds vs more commoner backgrounds? For instance, did someone whose family came from the scholar-gentry perhaps see the conflict through a 'traditional' Confucian lens and/or were their Confucian worldviews challenged? I have heard the experiences in World War 1 became quite transformative as these soldiers were exposed to ideas and cultural aspects they wouldn't have back home.

I'm aware of for instance the Chinese labor battalions, the Japanese contributions such as Tsingtao, or the Indochinese troops, and have been trying to find useful academic sources but haven't found that many. I did for instance find Race, Empire and First World War Writing, which had a short but interesting chapter on Vietnamese soldiers of WW1, and dealt with issues such as marriage between these Vietnamese soldiers and French women, conflicts between Vietnamese and West African troops, gambling, the fate of these soldiers post-war, and so on. Much of this chapter was available on google books, but am hoping someone can point me to other more sources.

Thanks in advance!

Hello everybody, I was wondering what the italian cuisine consisted of before the tomato was brought to Europe. Because most italian food contains tomatos in some way or another. Thanks!

Question is in title, but anyway, Did pirates in general really drink a lot of rum. Also, if they did really prefer rum, what would be the closest thing we have today to the kind of rum they used to drink? Would captain Morgan be close?

As the title says, prior to the successful Normandy landings, how likely did an allied victory in the war seem at that point?

I'd like to clarify; I am talking about fiction writers. I do not mean to include any member of the intellectual community that hypothesized on another continent's existence. Was there a Jules Verne of ancient Rome? Or could there have been elaborate tales of another continent across the sea, filled with monsters and strange beings, told to young Japanese children?

I thought of this question while reading Thucydides' Peloponnesian War. To the Greeks, with a few exceptions, their continent was the world. I asked myself if they may have ever considered that they barely knew of half the world. Of course, I don't know the answer, so I pass it off to you guys!

[Edit] I realize that this is based off a story but hypothetically if this happened IRL in the same time period the movie is set in,what would happen?

Or did they see landmasses separated by ocean to be entirely unconnected to each other and for oceans to be water "all the way down" (whatever that may be)? Or did they perhaps even see landmasses as floating on a large single body of water?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I am reading Charles Tilly's "Coercion, Capital and European States" and several maps illustrate various Sultanates, Caliphates and Emirates across North Africa. Obviously a Caliphate is controlled by a Caliph, a Sultanate by a Sultan, but my research online has failed to elucidate large substantive differences in the application of rule. Is there any meaningful difference, or are these various names merely superficial? Is this a theological issue?

The only serious difference, I've found, is in the use of the Mamluks by Sultanates, whereas Caliphates and Emirates didn't rely so heavily on this military system. Thank you in advance.

Myanmar doesn't have a shortage of ethnic conflicts, but none of the other ethnic groups are totally disowned and disavowed by the state as they are.

In the middle ages [11-15] what was a cost effective option for the less wealthy in terms of body protection. i know that most everyone in an army had a shield, even if wooden, and weapon-wise spears were both cheap and common, and sidearms were either axes or short-swords, but what did people wear for protection?

on a side note; outside of the army what would peasants/commoners use for self defense? did they have access to anything other than modified farm equipment?

When were they recognized as conditions and how were they treated/perceived in the past? Is there some book which thake this topic into consideration for a further study?

many thanks

I'm currently researching Eli Whitney for a paper. On some subjects, such as his invention of the cotton gin, most sources tend to agree. On others, such as his invention, or popularization, or unsuccessful attempt of interchangeable parts, I can't find a straight answer. Are there any more reliable sources I can be using? In general, how do I determine which sources are more accurate?

Hello,

I'm actually from Bosnia and I'd sort of want to learn more about my country's history.

Who was involved? What happened during the war? When did it take place? Where did it take place? Why did that happen? Aftermath? What happened after the war?

So why did none of the Italian states (especially Venice and Genoa) not use the opportunity to colonize? After all their trade did get less lucrative over time after the Ottomans started controlling Istanbul and Alexandria, so why did they not consider investing in other trade opportunities?

As far as I know Portugal for example colonized along Africa and Asia to get access to the Asian trade which Venice and Genoa had an exclusive access to among the European powers, at least after the Ottomans started controlling important trade ports. So why did the Italians not consider doing the same to avoid their dependence on the Ottomans?

Or they could have colonized something in the New World after Spanish colonialists proved it to be lucrative.

My guess is that at the point where this could have been an interesting option it was already too late, since the Pope has proclaimed territorial guarantees for Spanish and Portuguese colonies, but why have the Italians not used their chance to colonize before that?