I was watching an older film -- I believe it was "All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)" -- and one of the enlisted German soldiers was complaining about never getting white bread.

Has white bread been historically considered a luxury item? Why?

I can find lots of roman "style" music, but is there any piece that is recorded with some sheet music we can play today?

Hey! I'm playing a tabletop RPG with a group of friends, and we were looking to pick the brains of someone with knowledge of the operation of WWII era battleships. The game is set in the future, in a post zombie apocalypse world; the setting involves the zombie apocalypse having lead the large scale collapse of most of civil society and most nonessential government. The players are part of a group that has taken refuge in the USS Wisconsin, and are working to get the materials and technical expertise to get it as operational and fortified as possible. Would anyone be interested in helping out by answering some questions and speculating about how something like this might play out in a fantasy world?

The way I understand it, the large galley ships of Antiquity usually couldn't carry enough supplies on board to sustain the crew for more than a day or so, and so they tended to stay within sight of the coast.

How would this work logistically for voyages across the Aegean? Say if I'm in Miletus, and someone in Corinth looked at me funny, and I wanted to give them a piece of my mind with 200 triremes, how would I get from A to B?

Would I have to go up along the coast of Asia Minor, across the Hellespont, along the Thracian coast, then south off of Greece proper?

Would there be enough islands 'bridging' the Aegean with ports that can resupply such a large fleet that a more direct route is possible?

Could one resupply the triremes at sea from sailing vessels that can carry more cargo, and just go straight across that way?

Were there conspiracy theories that he was being falsely accused? Did apologists believe that he was such a good leader that criminal activity was justified if it kept him in office? Did his supporters refuse to accept any wrongdoing even after his resignation?

Curious what books published in 2016 and 2017 are worthwhile and noteworthy to be added to the sub’s wiki.

Apart from Hitler's increasing aggression due to the perception that the western democracies were weak and indecisive, what other consideration have I left out? Feel free to elaborate on my previous point; from what I can understand, Hitler saw that past crises remain unsolved and simply pushed his luck. Is that all?

Or did they, and if so, what happened?

I recently watched a documentary about Princess Diana, and one of the commentators said that, historically, it was accepted that both English kings and their queen consorts could take a lover or lovers. In the case of Queen consorts, this was usually after they'd provided an heir to the Crown.

I am well aware of the stories of philandering English and British kings and princes, but to hear this was de facto with their consorts surprises me. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two consorts who we know cheated on their husbands: Queen Isabella, who ultimately deposed her husband, and Catherine Howard, who was executed. But if what this documentary said was true, then there must be some examples of consorts whose extramarital affairs ended more happily-- for everybody involved. Maybe.

Who were these queens? Who were their husbands? Did their husbands know their wives had lovers? What did their court think? Did any heirs face claims of illegitimacy because of their mother's affairs? If a woman was still fertile when these affairs began, was birth control effective enough back then to ensure she wouldn't become pregnant?

This question applies to queen consorts of Britain and England from the first English Queen consort all the way to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Would they take care of you? How?

I recently read an article thay claimed that during WW2 the german destroyed more soviet tanks than USSR made during the war + the tanks USSR had before the war. This makes the only reason USSR had any tanks left lend lease. Is this claim true?

Nowadays one of the main annoyances for anything outdoors is mosquitoes buzzing and biting all over the place (at least here in the Midwest). In previous times, did certain classes use methods to keep mosquitoes away, or were they simply tolerated as a manageable and not overly dangerous annoyance?

Ok, I am specifically looking at the United States, I know other countries got desperate and put anyone in uniform with a heartbeat. But got into a discussion about the alleged unfitness of the modern American population. I'm a former US Army Recruiter, so I am intimately familiar with modern standards. I raised the point that comparing what percentage of the US population is fit for service today vs WWII is apples to oranges because the standards were so different.

The obvious example is education - today an applicant must have a High School education, even a GED isn't good enough without some college credit also. That wasn't the case in 1940, most Americans didn't have a HS diploma. To meet bare minimum standards to be a cook, rifleman, etc, was there a minimum educational level? Could you be so poorly educated you couldn't serve at all? Was there an attempt to teach basic literacy if someone could not read at all?

Weight standards - today we have both a max and minimum BMI standard for enlistment. I have read of WWII Soldiers gaining weight during training because they were so undernourished due to Depression unemployment. Were there minimum weight standards or maximum?

Legal/Moral issues - today a person with a felony conviction, domestic violence, drug charge, or just too many misdemeanors cannot enlist. Absent a good way to search records, did the Army or Navy even try to screen for such things?

I recently read Pu Songling's Strange Tales From a Chinese Studio and this exam system seems wildly intricate and profoundly important to the elite of the time. I'm wondering how it came about, how it came to occupy such an important part of high society, and if there are any traces of it in contemporary Chinese society.

Warning contains vulgar language

Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan!

O sultan, Turkish devil and damned devil's kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are thou, that canst not slay a hedgehog with your naked arse? The devil shits, and your army eats. Thou shalt not, thou son of a whore, make subjects of Christian sons; we have no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck thy mother.

Thou Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, pig of Armenia, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig's snout, mare's arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw thine own mother!

So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won't even be herding pigs for the Christians. Now we'll conclude, for we don't know the date and don't own a calendar; the moon's in the sky, the year with the Lord, the day's the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!

I doubt that anyone truly ENJOYS paying taxes, and the 90+% tax bracket of Harold Wilson's government sounds extraordinary by contemporary standards.

Even so, fans of the Beatles and Rolling Stones are generally stereotyped as left-leaning. I can only imagine that if someone like Adele or Ed Sheeran wrote an anti-taxation anthem today, there would be a strong negative reaction. Or at least a polarizing one.

How did progressive music fans of the era reconcile their support for a strong social safety net, with rocking out to anti-tax anthems? Was political alignment just more nuanced back then? Or were these albums divisive after all? Or some other factor(s) that might not be obvious if you weren't there?