People on another subreddit were talking about politics and mentioned disappointment about a certain candidate nominated by the "party of Lincoln". Another poster said that Lincoln was deeply racist and that this wasn't a good criticism to make.

Anyways, this got me to think about this...was Lincoln really a racist? People mention this on the internet pretty frequently actually and I am very curious...

Moreover, you have to put so many guys in them that if they fail, it seems like a major loss of both time and manpower.

Were they forced into it and why didn't any catholic nations object?

I've heard before that both sides were near the end of their manpower by the end of the war, and was wondering if
A: this was true?
B: How did the Axis powers manage to cause such a depletion of such numerically superior opponents?
C: how the manpower situations progressed through the war to their situations at the end?

I've asked this question twice before on AskHistorians in differing ways and failed to get a satisfactory answer - it's great that this sub keeps its standards so high! Here's hoping it's 3rd time lucky :)

I've read that he was and was wondering if this was just speculation by people who don't know their history or whether there are any facts suggesting it.

As a tennage Korean living in America, I've been curious about this subject for a while now. So exactly what did Japan do to Korea during its annexation, and what are they still doing wrong? I've heard that Japan doesn't educate its students of the wrongs they did, and that they haven't really apologized to Korea. But on WIkipedia, there's a list of apologies Japan made. Are they not considered real apologies? Also, how do younger Koreans (teens-20s) feel about Japan?

Just started learning about the lead up to WW2 in my college history course and we were touching on Italy and talked about the black shirts and what they did but didn't touch on how members were recruited or how they had legal protection to act in the way they did, especially early on before they took power. I've tried to look online but couldn't find many sources that talked on the issues I'm trying to find. Any insight or pointing me in the right direction would be very appreciated.

That is, how likely would it be that someone would still be in fighting condition and still able to engage in combat at the end of April, 1945?

The Library of Alexandria was one of the most famous examples of knowledge databases of the ancient world. They manage to collect an immense body of information which they categorized and filed away for future records.

A large amount of information eventually became lost to us after a series of fires which occurred at different periods of history (contrary to popular belief there was more than one fire). Many portions of the records weren't restored and have been lost to history as a result.

My question:

Is it possible that copies of the records might still exist in other areas of the former empire? Possible in a forgotten backlog somewhere in the ancient world?

Was there any known system of making copies of these sorts of records which would give historians hope that something along those lines might exist? Some sort of example which shows "We know they made copies of these records here so it's possible they made copies of the others that were lost"

If such records might exist, where would they even be?

In all the texts I've read, there are no references made to archers. It appears to that the Romans preferred to use javelin wielding skirmishers or slingers rather than archers (in the pre-marian period at least). I'm puzzled by this, as I would assume that the range of archers would be much greater than that of any other ranged weapon of the period. Was there any reason for their preference of slings and pila?

If you look at a map of modern day Europe, you will find a series of clearly defined lines that distinguish the borders of the different nations. My question is, was it always this way? Did medieval nations also define their borders as clear outlines or did they have a different approach to determining their borders?

It seems to me that most ancient cultures valued beards highly, associating them with virility and maturity, while the Romans associated them with decadent "eastern" cultures and considered them almost effeminate, in a paradoxical way. I do know that letting the beard grow was part of their mourning rituals.

Is there any consensus among historians on why Romans rejected the beard, or any contemporary opinions on the origin of their shaving customs?

If I understand correctly, before the introduction in Europe of banknotes, bonds and similar, the value of money was entirely based on the worth of the precious metals inside. Barring a drop in the value of gold, how could a ruler decide to debase their money? Did they just declare that from now on, the new coins would contain less gold than before? If so, why didn't people who had a lor of the old coins just melt them for value and resold the metal?

Also, relatedly, what made certain currencies more sought after than other? Was it only the trust placed in the authority minting them that they wouldn't cheat on the metal composition?

The Red army in 1944 would've been quite capable of easily brushing aside the Finns, and its not like the western allies would do anything about it