Afaik the deployment of Pershing IIs and of the cruise missiles wasn't only a response to the soviet deployment of the ss-20s but also necessary for the modernization of LRTNF and TNFs in general in Europe to stop an Attack from the Soviet Union with their superiority in conventionell forces and necessary for the "flexible response".

But after the INF-Treaty both of these were scrapped. So how did NATO try to halt an soviet conventional attack?

Repost because last time there wasn't an answer, maybe I get lucky now

It's a common knowledge Rasputin was despised by many and his behaviour was considered far from holy. My question is do we remember him as scandalous just because he had an international prominence? Was he considered a great sinner was he just too sinful for a preacher/healer? Would his behaviour be considered outrageous if he was just a nobleman?

And, of course, I'd like to hear some suitable specifics about his adventures.

I have often heard people defend the study of history by saying “those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it” or something similar

I am not a professional historian, just someone who really enjoys studying it when time allows. So I pose this question to the professional historians reading this, can history really teach us anything about the future? Should that even be the goal of history, to help identify and predict future trends by studying previous ones?

I hope this question does not violate any subreddit rules, I’ve always wanted to hear a professional historians take on the whole “doomed to repeat it” idea and figured r/askhistorians was a good place to start. If this is the wrong place I apologize!!

I know the subject of Germany's occupation and reindustrialization was a point of contentious debate among Allied planners. Did a similar debate take place with regards to Japan? What was the scope and result of that debate? Was there a faction pushing for a greatly weakened Japan wholly dependent on American manufactured goods?

I'd imagine that wearing a sword on your hip for most of your life would affect your body somehow.

Occasionally, I hear well-educated people claim that, while the Nazis were evil, they were also very smart while being overwhelmed. I understand that they had some brilliant military tacticians and strategists, along with top-notch soldiers and equipment. But from what I know, if the Germans had not acted so irrationally genocidal, especially towards Jews and Slavs, they could have reallocated the resources spent on genocide to something more useful, as well as won the hearts and minds of the people in the lands they conquered. But I'm not really an expert on this, and I was hoping that a few of you could weigh in.

The story I have always heard is that, the arabic numeral system was developed by Persians not arabs, brought into the west through trade with the arab world, and is therefor known as "arabic numerals".

However, since I have heard so many different versions of why the numeral system is called what it's called. Some saying it was developes by Indians, some say a group of different people groups, and only perfected by Indians and Persians. Persians living in what now is modernday Pakistan, Indians living in what now is modernday Pakista etc.

Basically a whole lot of different facts, retelling, stories, and I just don't know what to believe anymore. So can I please just get this claryfied? Who developed the arabic numeral system, why is it called the arabic numeral system, and what are the missconceptions surrounding it?

(Sorry for any spelling or grammar mistakes)

Romans with Germans (Hermann "betrayed" the Romans, also the Goths), and Abbasids with Persians and Turks (You know how well that ended, the Abbasid Empire became very fragmented, with Tulunids ruling Egypt, and Samanids in Iran). Are there other Empires that recruited from the Frontiers? How did it end up for them?

I was watching the news last night and was wondering how people before Gutenberg could get news. Thanks!

It's obvious that they mostly had the same gods, but with different names (e.g. Thor = Thunor, Odin = Woden). However, we have many Norse sources describing Norse pagan mythology, but no Anglo-Saxon sources (that I know of) describing their own pagan mythology . Given that their gods are essentially the same in all but slight variations in naming, to what extent can we assume that the Anglo-Saxons believed in the same mythology as the Norse-speaking peoples (e.g. Ragnarok, 9 worlds of Yggdrasil, creations myths etc)?

For my German class I have to give a 7 minute presentation about Berlin. All fine and dandy, but me, as an uneducated millenial, has trouble finding concrete differences in how people in both West and East Berlin lived their lives. If someone could help me out that'd be greatly appreciated.

I have read that the Grand Mufti of Jersualem had a positive relationship with Hitler but that Muslims from India also fought with the Brits. I imagine that most countries were thinking of their own gain, especially since some Muslim countries were under Western control. Was there a general consensus on the war from Muslims at large, including civilians? I find it interesting since the Nazi ideology clearly clashed heavily with Islam but the British weren't angels with their colonies either.

A small follow up question: Was the Egyptian elite ethnically different from the Egyptian population as a whole?

We know of Boudica's rebellion of the Iceni (with Trinovantes and other tribes- who?), destroying Colchester, Londinium and St Albans, then being heavily beaten by Governor Suetonius Paulinus, but what happened to them afterwards?

Were there further battles, or just punitive campaigns by the Romans to wipe them out?

So, this might be a confusing question, but let me clarify.

I've read a lot about the fact that charging the enemy, particularly in the napoleonic era and later, was much more about making them break and rout before you actually got there, capitalising on just how terrifying a bunch of big men running at you with pointy objects is. From memory, the French Old Guard was considered terrifying not just because of their skill, but because they never broke in battle. except that one time at Waterloo

I'm sure that this is also the truth about previous eras in battle, but I hear much less about units breaking before receiving a charge from the medieval period and earlier. I'm sure this isn't because they're necessarily less scary than bayonet/sabre charges, but I was wondering if the infamy about bayonets and such made them scarier to their opponents than swords and spears did previously.

Did it have to do with the feudal warrior class before? (Knights/Samurai and such being trained extensively with the best gear and a warrior doctrine against far less trained peasants) or was it because people were more educated about how lethal close combat fighting was? Could it be another reason?

TL;DR were bayonet charges considered scarier during their time period than infantry charges were previously (during the renaissance/medieval era/earlier)?