After the franco-prussian war and the unification of germany both nation straight up hated each other and were eager to rebuke each other in the first world war and later on the second world war. But how did it happen that this hatred just "disappeared" and is replaced with a really healthy relationship between those countries today? Sorry if this is the wrong sub to ask such a question!

Presumably, a bunch of returning Japanese veterans would have lived for many decades after the end of the war. How did they cope as a society, and as individuals, with the defeat and aftermath of their ultra-nationalist ideology?

Are there instances of Tojo-esque nationalism cropping back up in Japanese politics in later decades? How did the average Japanese person view these?

although pre and post-Taliban figures on strength are available, all I could find were simply the number of planes, tanks and vehicles the Taliban owned. Any manpower numbers? Or organizational information?

I hope this is allowed, given the pre-taliban government fell in 1992, which is more than 20 years ago.

Hello there. After reading, Kershaw's 'Hitler' biography I have become interested in the relationship between the ex-Kaiser and Hitler. I know the two never met, as well as the infamous 'my army' telegram', but I was wondering if there are any sources about what they thought about each other, particularly Hitler? On a similar note, I am curious as to what the German population in general thought of Wilhelm and whether , apart from the army, there were any serious consideration to have the monarchy restored during the Nazi period as a tool for Hitler to use as propaganda? Thanks, Peter

I see this shortening time and time again both in modern time and back to Richard Feynman whom often shortened his own name as Dick Feynman and now I even see it in reddit jokes.

What's the connection?

[deleted]

In looking at Roman history I find that often times the Gual's or Germans could out number the Roman legions by large margins. My question is how is this possible if the following kingdoms fielded combined armies of 10-15 thousand during the first Crusade.

While doing research, I noticed that of the countries in which the Nazi government incentivized extramarital births between German fathers and Aryan mothers, Norway's reaction against the mothers and their children is most documented and the most severe. Is this due to the extent of the Nazi programs in the country, or based on other factors such as scarce resources being allocated to the care of these families during the war?

I've read that 1927-1937 was a period of consolidation for Chiang's KMT during which there was no external conflict (Japan's 1931 annexation of Manchuria did not develop into a full-blown war) and relatively weak internal resistance.

Did any of the concessions from the Qing-era Unequal Treaties get reversed/moderated during that time? Was Chinese sovereignty reestablished in certain areas?

To add on to it, were there any concessions reversed/moderated or sovereignty restored a) post-WWI and b) post-Xinhai revolution?

"Soldiers" can also mean fighter pilots, bombing pilots, sailors, or any armed personnel.

Why did so many join him eastwards? Why was he called the far-travelled (he was only 25 when he died so he couldn't have travelled that much)? How many would have joined him on his trip and why are there so many runestones describing it compared to other viking raids?

I have a feeling, based on my grandparents' views on Islam, that rural village and small town Turks in Ottoman times, especially those from Anatolian coastal regions and Balkans, were not stereotypical examples of Islamist Fundamentalists that we see today.

Despite the fact that Ottoman society is often imagined (by both political sides in Turkey) to be a very strict Islamic heavy society, my theory is that this was only true at the top level of society and in the big cities and towns like Istanbul and in the regions closer to Arabia. Whereas in Western and Northern rural areas and small towns it was less orthodox, less by the book and more of a cultural and identity thing.

So I want to prove that hypothesis via expert opinion and extensive reading in the subject area.

I would highly appreciate recommend sources for further reading.

Something I've always been curious about but never found an answer too was how naval life compared to being a soldier during WWI. Was joining the navy a safer bet than joining the army? How did the life of an Allied sailor fare compared to an Allied soldier?

Thank you for your time.

And in his successive campaigns...

After William conquered England and became king was he still under the rule of the French? Or at least the land he controlled in France? I've heard that the English King would attend the King of France's coronation and would swear fealty to him, but I am not so sure if it is true. Another question is why did the French King not have at the very least nominal control of England, as their king should have been a subject to the French Monochary.

I was just curious. It seems easy to do back then.

I doubt he jus disappeared from politics. Did he advise John Adams or anything after being the first president?

Friend is living in Colorado. Today he went to the Mesa Verde National Park and saw the remains of what he says he was told were early Pueblo Indian settlements built into the sides of the mountains.

He was also told they had found macaw remains and other items believed to have been traded with the Maya in some kind of huge trade network before said network mysteriously collapsed.

This was supposedly all explained as "controversial".

Can any scholars here shed some light on how much of this is true?

I have the popular impression of the first World War being largely about trenches, gas, and Tolkien seeing dead people in pools of water; as well as a poor understanding of wars that occurred between the American Civil War and World War 1.

Because of that, I'm unable to picture an actual battle as anything other than some quixotic blend of Napoleonic, American Civil War, and World War 2 battles. I've looked around (skimmed two Wikipedia articles and searched this sub for 'WW1') but haven't found anything informative.

Everything I've read lists the important causes/results, but summarizes that action with nondescript phrases like engaged, maintained contact, or drove back. No mention of the manner in which the results were actually achieved, instead focusing on the larger strategic impact of individual battles.

Any info on this would be great, so I can stop picturing J.E.B. Stuart and Co. attempting to flank machine gun emplacements.

Roman, British or both?