What did he accomplish, what were his government's failures, to what extent and in what form did worker control happen etc.?

I've heard it attributed to him a lot, often the context given is that it was after the Bay of Pigs. Looking around a bit I can't seem to find a solid source, just people parroting the quote.

I have read about kings trading victories every 20-30 years, especially the South Indian kings like Pallava, Chola, Pandya and Chalukya who win and lose regularly to each other. Is victory mostly determined by who can gather more alliances/vassals, except for rare cases?

Bonus question: What did the Imperial Cholas, from Rajaraja I, do differently from the others, which made them nearly undefeated for the next century?

I assume he was in England at the time, so news must have taken quite a while to reach him. Any idea how long?

I'm just wondering what happened to the various Germanic Tribes that caused the fall of Western Rome. Aka Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Suebi, Lombards, Huns, Franks, Angles, Jutes, Saxons. Do they have any descendants?

(If it isn't too much to ask could you please tell me the descendants of each tribe? Sorry.)

I've heard it argued that by virtue of Augustus' long life was a major factor in establishing the empire, since at his death, few even remembered the republic. Is there any truth to this?

I need a decent summary and i'm curious to learn more about Pol Pot's rise to power.

The title says it all, but I was watching the first episode of BBC's documentaries on the Cold War, and it showed how Clement Attlee replaced Churchill as the British representative midway through Potsdam conference, because Churchill had lost the bid for reelection. How could such a seemingly popular and reverent figure lose that election when you would think his popularity would be at an all time high for preserving the British way of life during the war and ultimately leading them to victory?

[deleted]

I am aware that there were quite a few missionaries living in China and other nations in the area, but were there any other Europeans living there? Like families? Traders? Courtiers? Criminals? That sort of thing. Were there people who either tried to make a better life there or even assimilated into the local culture/society? Specific examples would be appreciated if available.

Which European royalty had the most hideous visual defects due to inbreeding. I believe it was Charles V, but I'm curious as to both the mental and physical deformities resulting from the inbreeding from the 12th to 19th centuries.

I tried googlin' this up, and couldn't find anything.

Did people in the (English-speaking) world refer to Great Britain's 13 colonies by one collective name? Did they refer to them as the New World, or does that refer to more?

Obviously the colonies were not united, but colloquially, with language, did people refer to them by some kind of name?

Thanks!

Not sure if I'm doing this right, never made a meta post before.

So we already have flaired users, whose flair demonstrates their knowledge on a subject, but I think it would be a good idea to take it another step. Right now we have lots of interesting questions in some subjects, but they often get buried by influxes of equally interesting questions from other subjects.

If it were possible or practical, these questions could be flaired by the author to fall into a certain category. All questions of a certain subject can be filtered by category on a main page (somewhat similar to the filters on /r/worldnews) which will display only the questions of that subject.

Additionally, one can potentially subscribe to a particular subject where an automod can notify the subscriber if a new question has been posted (or more practically, give a list of all new posts in a certain length of time; perhaps anywhere from 3 hours to a day).

By doing this, people that come here looking for questions on a subject they like, either to wait for/read responses or answer themselves can find them extremely easily, and people that ask the questions in the first place have a better chance of getting answers as well.

How bou?

This seems like the obvious place to ask. Not sure if this post is against the rules but I'm possibly getting an internship at a local museum and was wondering what to expect.

Who owns the copyrights to the book "Executive Order 9066: The Internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans" by Maisie Conrat and Richard Conrat.

Which had the better medical knowledge?

In constitutional monarchies, its decision makers are almost always the Prime Minister, since the monarch's powers has been largely restrained with few reserve powers (UK) and/or totally stripped (Sweden) since the 20th century.

But why has many republics in Europe, especially those in the EU, adopt a parliamentary system (PM in charge, ceremonial President) instead of a presidential system (President in charge)? Even those that started out as presidential (like Finland) gradually transitioned to a parliamentary republic upon joining the EU. (OTOH, upon realizing it'd probably never get admitted into the EU, Turkey went the opposite direction and is slowly becoming a presidential republic, it seems. )

Is it just for conformity sake so that the PMs from the monarchies won't have to face the awkward diplomatic protocol of being "outranked" by the Presidents of the republics during summit meetings?

But if that's the case, why has France maintained its semi-presidential system, with its President often very prominent in EU summit meetings, standing side-by-side with PMs of other member states?

[deleted]