I'm Israeli and my history class used to have a copy of the newspaper announcing the 1947 partition plan. Back then I've noticed the newspaper pointed out that Ukraine and Belarus voted in the plan in the UN (more accurately the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR).

I later confirmed this when I checked on Wikipedia.

So that got me curious, why could the Soviet SSRs vote "independently" from the Soviet Union in the United Nations? Did other countries recognize them as somewhat separate entities from the USSR? And what other "freedoms" did they have from the Soviet Union itself? (Of course I'm assuming they had to vote with the Soviet Union on everything but still).

I don’t imagine that the Vikings or the Kahns of history were “liberating” territory, or “defending” themselves from being attacked first, or claimed that because they are “victims” they therefore have the right to correct history. Is this kind of language and rational a feature of diplomatic relationships, or just a more densely populated world? Is it all propaganda for the home front so people feel like there’s a personal-seeming reason to fight? Why do states go to the trouble to feign a defensive motive when it’s clear that they’re just taking territory and resources because they can?

I am seeking recommendations for works on Georgian history prior to Russian annexation and Armenian history after the 14th century. While I mainly want comprehensive resources, works on narrow topics would also be interesting as well. I have already read R.G Suny’s The making of the Georgian nation and The Armenian people from ancient to modern times, ed. R.G Hovannisian.

So Catherine/Yekaterina (as she was actually called in Russian) was originally a German princess called Sophie. She changed her name to something more Russia for marrying the Tsarina's nephew. And that's what she's known as. But did she call herself Yekaterina or Sophia? I get most people would call her your majesty/excelanncy/empress ect. But did her husband call her Yekaterina or Sophie? Or her various boyfriends? Did her parents still call her Sophie (if they were still alive at the time). Even if she demanded everyone call her your majesty surely Peter called her by name. Like how Eva Braun and Ernst Rh°o°m were the only person who got to say Adolf rather than mine f°u°hrer.

Did poltical oponants call her Sophie mockingly to show she wasn't Russian? Like how poltical oponents of the Iranian government hight call Rouhollah Khomeni Rouuhollah Hindi as that was his original last name cause his grandfather was indian.

I'm just curious if Yekaterina called herself Sophie personally or she had taken on Yekaterina as a new name. Like in the UK George VI (the queen's dad) real name was Albert (bertie to

I know the rumor exist but where is it based?

My typical understanding is that:

1. It's one of the key executive bodies of the Republic with a ridiculous amount of power. They even forced a Doge to abdicate at some point.

2. Elections are made annually

3. Multiple terms are allowed, but consecutive terms aren't

4. No two members of the same family can seat on the council at the same time

5. The council has three Capi or Chiefs who rotate monthly during which they are not allowed to leave the Doge's palace.

However, I've seen contradictory info in other places, like pther book excerpts. Somewhere it was said for example that elections were actually for six months instead of being yearly and that they're not actually as powerful as usually thought.

Would someone more knowledgeable like to chime in?

I've read that there was a relatively big conversion of Jews to Catholicism during the holocaust. However, I couldn't find many sources that say if that helped the Jews to not be followed/persecuted and to what extent did it help, if it even did something. That's why I'm asking here.

​

Would convert to Christianity 'solve' the problem of being a Jew during ww2? Let's say you converted during the war or while in the camp, would they let you out?

​

And I apologize in advance if this question is insensitive, rude, triggering, or upsetting to anyone. That is not my intention, I just want to know more about the bigger picture; is it the religion itself or the fact that they belonged to a certain group with traditions and so on?

In San Francisco, Paul Revere is being used along with other names (Lincoln, George Washington) to be removed/replaced because of his contribution to history of white supremacy (something along those lines, I'm sure you get the gist of what's going on). He is specifically being brought up due to his contribution to the Penobscot Expedition, which apparently had to do with colonization of Native Americans. I'm a bit busy and don't have time to research this extensively; if any of you are familiar with the American Revolution, was the purpose of the Penobscot Expedition to colonize the Native Americans and their land? And is Paul Revere a total POS?

Hi, I am researching about the time around Charlemagne's coronation in the year 800 AD. but I can't find any book that talks in detail about the changes in Rome's aspect between the 5th and 8th centuries.

Specifically, what happened in detail with the 12 Aqueducts, the Colosseum, the Circus Maximus, the Temple of the Sun, the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the Palatine Hill, the Caelian Hill, the Roman Forum and its adjacent buildings. Basically, the most important monuments, as well as constructions in general. And also, what was the appearance of most of the churches that were built in this period?.

I know there isn't such a long answer, so I'm asking for book recommendations that cover at least part of these topics, if any.

I read somewhere that the Apollo 11 moon landing is still one of the most-watched live tv events in history, had something like 650 million viewers. Through the 50s and 60s it seemed there was so much public support for NASA and the government was dumping loads of money into the space program. However, after the first three missions it was as if nothing had ever happened and nobody seemed to give a fuck anymore. I saw that viewership of the launches from that point on had steeply declined. So what happened? Is this also the reason why the Apollo program was cancelled?

In Munich, the edge of war, there is a black character who seems pretty high up in the government/military. He also speaks with a perfect British accent, indicating that he's not from one of the colonies. Was there such a population of black people in Britain at that time? Basically upper class black Brits who were completely integrated in society?

Another day, and other post-Soviet conspiracy theory. This time, the author, an engineer (better than a KGB hood I guess), claims that he has deduced from the archives that Soviet authorities purposely undersupplied Leningrad, when in fact it would have been easy to feed the city across Lake Ladoga had they wanted. Furthermore, he says that German interdiction efforts were ineffective. Is there actual evidence of this? I have not read this book, but from the description my post-Soviet friend gave me, it sounds like Suvarov/Rezunesque deductive logic from cherrypicked data. I would think that there would be actual minutes of meetings that would prove one way or another whether the authorities cared how much food got into Leningrad. What do we know about this?

I read it's different that's because when you hear your own voice, it hasn't escaped the nasal cavity yet, so everyone's voice sounds more nasal in reality than it does in their head. People often say they hate how their voice sounds to other people. However, before recording technology, I don't think people had any way to hear their own voice (maybe echoes?). Did people understand they sounded different to other people in theory, even if they had never heard an example?

From what I understand of Anglo-Saxon England, it was united by the Kingdom of Wessex in the 900s. So why is it named after the Angles and not the Wessexians?

I was reading a selection from Hermann Hesse's If the War Goes On and he mentions them. Any advice for further reading?

What do historians think would have happened if France and England would have told Hitler they would declare war if he takes back the Sudetenland? Do they really think he would have never invaded Czechoslovakia? And if they would have declared war after the invasion of Czechoslovakia instead of Poland, what difference do historians think it would have made?

Hello! I am currently writing a paper on state sponsored terrorism, and when it comes to this example, I can't seem to get a clear answer. Does anyone here know?