I was having a discussion about life in a capitalist vs communist or socialist country would be.

I was thinking about the ability to just say "screw it", leave society and buy a plot of land and live by subsistence farming. This is certainly possible in capitalist countries, but what about in socialist/communist regimes? If I lived in China in 1960 or Russia in 1970, or Venezuala/Cuba now, would I get away with just dropping of the grid and fending for myself? Or would I be told what to produce/be forced to take part in the economy?

I remember reading somewhere a fairly detailed piece describing the rise of the Blackshirts, their methods of organizing and intimidation, and the political and cultural origins of fascism in Italy in the 1920s and 30s.

Is it true they were former WWI officers and landowners who roamed the countryside beating and murdering socialists and peasants?

The ships were built on land, but how did men in the viking age move the ship from land into the river / sea? For example, a ship with a need of a hundred oarsmen must have been very heavy?

Please correct me if any of the statements I made in my question are wrong..

Hey guys, I'm doing a little bit of research for a novel I'm writing (but was also curious about it), and I couldn't find anything about the topic. Are there any historians that know whether or not there were some cultures, etc. that allowed left handed swordsmen? Or just left handed weapon-fighting in general? I haven't been able to dig anything up about it.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

That is, what is/are their function(s) which is/are so distinctive from another branch of the military, like the army or navy, that their function is indispensable? What they were originally used for (I think it was defending ships from boarders and aiding boarding actions, right?) has become completely obsolete. And obviously the marine corps has evolved with the times. While I fully believe that they are a very adept fighting force, is there any solid justification for them not being folded into the Army? Do they have certain functions that are just incompatible with the other branches’ doctrines? Is it just simply the force of tradition?

Specifically: Why haven't naval carrier aircraft (especially WW2) ever had low aspect ratio wings (stubby but running further down the length of the airframe), allowing for the same amount of surface area whilst allowing for extra aircraft to be fit on the carrier, as well as a bigger tower?
My best guess is that:

• Firstly, the wing has a very shallow stall angle, due to the length of the wing, and it has poor manoeuvrability characteristics, acting as a vane keeping the aircraft pointing straight, making dives dangerous. It also would not allow for large control surfaces, or long roll moment arms.

• And secondly other methods such as folding wings, and larger carriers have taken prominence, and have been researched more (no point dropping a well understood technology).

Am I correct in my thinking?

[deleted]

I have mostly read Kershaw and Browning. I'm not as interested in strict military history, more the civil society and politics behind.

Here is, I think, a complete list of the books I've read:

By Kershaw:

"The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th ed."

"The Hitler Myth: Image and Reality in the Third Reich"

"Hitler: 1989 - 1936 'Hubris' "

"Hitler: 1937 - 1945 'Nemesis' "

"Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution"

By Browning:

"Ordinary Men: Police Batallion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland"

"The Origins of the Final Solution"

Other:

"Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe (By Robert Gellately)"

I feel like, for example, the economics of the 3rd reich is one area where my understanding is poor. Maybe an indepth look at the politics of the Weimar Republic in the 20's, too. Obviously, any suggestions of differing takes on covered areas are welcome too.

Thanks!

I was just wondering if there was ever a period in history, where the Ancient Romans had to do battle with armored knights or were they in two different time periods? Even if they were in two different time periods, did one side have any knowledge of the other?

I have read opposing stories about Lincoln's opinions about slavery and whether he was against it for moral reasons. I guess my question is was Lincoln for equality or were there other reasons behind the emancipation?

Furthermore, I assume ancient Greek is not mutually intelligible with modern Greek, similarly to modern English and ancient English (correct me if I'm wrong).

Why is it still considered the same language where Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc are not considered to be the "Latin" language?

I have read that he just fought in the war because he was a German patriot, I have also read that he fought because he was a Nazi, and believed in the cause.

Why did the Germans declare the trench gun too harmful durring WW1 (and as such a violation of the rules of war) when they were using mustard gas and flamethrowers themselves? Were Germans just ignorent of the suffering caused by their own weapons? Were the reports they received exadurated? Were they just desperate to reduce the enemy's power? Was there something else involved?

Edit: a word

Let's say someone enlisted for two years and then was captured and held in a POW camp for 5 years. Would they continue to get a check or would the pay end when their two years were up?

Social security cards, IDs, pictures, etc all allow us to prove our identity. But before all this, how were people able to protect their identities? What stopped someone from claiming to be a powerful person in a city where no one knew what the actual person looked like?

We are hearing constantly now about not looking at the sun during an eclipse. But before we had our current understanding, before a media to spread the message, and before special eclipse glasses, wouldn't curious farmers and villagers have been watching the entire event? It seems like there should be stories of people being wiped out when farms failed when the farmers and their families all went blind, of large amounts of blinded people without means of support after a total eclipse. If this occurred, it seems as though it would have become a part of folklore or myth.

Edit: Thanks! Those answers make perfect sense. I assumed the media frenzy was overblowing the whole risk, since I had not heard of this occurring. If they were right, animals, too, who happened to look up at that moment would be blinded, and there are not stories of herds of cows, for example, suddenly having an increase of blind members. Logic wins on this one.

[deleted]

There are lots of places known by their distance from town but it is in miles (e.g. 2 mile hill, 4 mile, 7 mile, 15 mile etc) rather than kilometres.

Where did miles come from and why didn't the informal names change when metric was introduced?

This question is a little hard for me to form but here goes. When speaking on slavery, I have had people mention the Moors as being a part of the slave trade. How true is this, what impact did it have on the slave trade in the Americas? Why is the European/American slave trade equated to racism and the Moors slave trade isn't?