I know that shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union a large number of nuclear weapons were stationed within Ukrainian borders. However, it is my understanding that Ukraine never had control over those weapons. They were guarded and controlled by troops that were loyal to Moscow and Ukraine did not have the resources and expertise to maintain or operate these weapons. (Nor did they have the enrichment facilities to build new ones.) Is that correct?

When did we realize that the indiscriminate killing of animals had a negative effect on the environment? I know that for the majority of American history, the prevailing thought process was that certain animals like wolves, bears, and cougars are bad and dangerous and they should be killed off. We brought many animals to the brink of extinction in the 19th and early 20th century. After this it was like we suddenly came to our senses, started creating national parks, and reintroducing animals. Who brought on this change if there was a specific person?

I'm torn apart trying to understand how the ancient world worked. Did the romans just go out to murder, steal and pillage just to get rich or, on the other hand, perhaps were they trying to help the people somewhat.

Meaning, once they found a new tribe, did they try to negotiate peace, if they accepted roman values perhaps they wouldn't go to war or harm them? Or were they openly just against everyone else, feeling superior and that they had the right to enslave them and hurt them for no reason.

​

For example in South America they were somewhat fond of human sacrifice once in a while, so one legitimate grievance Spaniards had was to try and stop that evil practice and help the kids (I'm aware the Spaniards did horrible things and lied about cannibalism probably, but at least this specific thing is true and I can imagine old spaniards fighting with some moral purpose in mind)

In The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement Mia makes use of a wooden leg device (Herbie) meant to hang on her saddle to give the appearance of her riding side-saddle. This was meant to make riding more comfortable and less awkward. Her grandmother Queen Clarisse explains to Mia that "Herbie" is a centuries old idea and that their ancestors knew a thing or two. Was there such a thing in history for this purpose? If so would it have worked or been made out of similar materials (wood, leather, etc)?

People today know that they are in the year 2022 AD, I’m asking how far back does this hearing system go, for instance would a person in 1336 Europe claim to be living in 1336? I’m aware of the differences is calendars and such throughout the world for a large majority of Earth’s history so that’s why I ask.

It seems like every account of things like woodstoves and masonry heaters being invented mention that they were made in response to fuel shortages. There were fuel shortages in Medieval times and antiquity though as well, why didn't anyone think to build masonry heaters and chimneys and whatnot? Like, during the Edo period, Japan was obsessively managing their forests, but people were still using massively inefficient charcoal braziers in their kotatsus. While the mediterranean was being deforested, Romans were still cooking and warming themselves over open fires, even though they clearly knew about chimneys and stuff, because they used them industrially. Why didn't the high price of fuel ever make more efficient means of heating economically viable? Or was it just that nobody thought to do it?

Are there any other books that mention what happened with Jesus Christ during the years he lived? Somewhere besides the Bible? Does anyone in a neighboring country mention that a political uprising was taking place in Jerusalem and someone got crucified for claiming to be king of the Jewish or anything?

I guess I'm asking, forgetting about thr whole religion thing, do we know that Jesus actually walked the earth or is it disputed that he ever actually existed at all?

Was there any discussion about whether the Soviet Union's seat would automatically go to Russia after it dissolved? Is there a mechanism by which a permanent seat goes to a successor state for any of the permanent members? If the United Kingdom were to dissolve into Scotland, England, and Wales, would England automatically get the seat by virtue of having London, for instance?

Why did early civilization spring up in these little pockets of good land by the rivers instead of much larger swathes of fertile land like the Po valley, the Ganga valley, Ukraine or France? instead happening by the nile, the Indus and between the Tigris and the Euphrates?

I live in the area the Danelaw used to cover and It's something I've always wondered about. I can't imagine Christian England allowing pagans to live in such close quarters but then again, they did eventually violently remove them.

No source I can find makes any mention of the religion of the settlers.

Could representatives from predominantly black/brown countries use the building, or was it segregated?

It seems weird to me that poor white farmers would go to war to preserve rich plantation ownership of slaves. What spin did the south put on the war to convince a poor white farmer to fight for the right to own slaves if he wasn’t rich enough to benefit from that right?

Asking from the American perspective. Are these polls out there somewhere?

Why wasn’t the NATO policy of an attack against one being an attack against all enacted when the Argentinian armed forces invaded the Falkland Islands which was legally a part of the UK? Why were firm allies of the UK such as the USA and some other members of NATO and the EEC reluctant to support the UK? Was it a case of world leaders supporting Argentina’s claim or did many support the British claim to the Falklands but preferred to stay out of it? And why did so many countries with no ties to Argentina or the UK support Argentina’s claim?

I have seen charts floating around that show that Russian GDP per Capita fell 40% after the Soviet Union fell and only recovered to pre-collapse levels around 2007. Is this just a weird statistical artifact or is it true that the quality of life for the average Russian became substantially worse after the Soviet Union fell?

I'm trying to write a paper for a class I'm in, and I cannot seem to find many Primary Sources on them. Am I just not looking hard enough? I've so far gathered only accounts and some codices, but I would like more that will give me greater insight on lifestyle, particlular individuals, or the society, without the taint of conquistador bias. Where should I start looking? Or did the spanish do such a good job in eliminating the culture, that primary sources are few and far between? Thanks in advance to anything that can help me, I appreciate it.

I highly doubt there was this much backlash, but was there any smaller protests that broke out within the respective countries?

In her The Stones of Florence, Mary McCarthy writes about a certain "Donna Maria Celiego" who was a female philosopher in Renaissance Florence. According to McCarthy, this woman owned nothing and slept outside, like Diogenes, and was famed for her wisdom.

Trouble is, I can't find any info about her beyond McCarthy's narrative. According to Google, she doesn't exist. Does anyone know who this mysterious Donna M. Celiego might be, or where I can learn more about her? Thanks!

A lot of talk about an ace pilot in Kyiv and I don't think I've heard this term before. Are these actual positions in warfare, or more legendary like the Red Baron?

I know it can happen that conquerors can come to identify with the conquered in some ways but I’m curious how it came about in this case. Is my assumption about Anglo-Saxon supremacy incorrect?

We know he was a great composer, but how much do we know about his instrument playing skills? How much do we know about the skills of great composers from the past as a whole?