I realise this is an often weaponised discussion in the current political debate but I also realised that rarely anyone ever uses any kinds of historical sources for their arguments.

Side A says: Fascism and Socialism are essentially the same thing and brought the catastrophes of the 20th century to the world.

Side B says: Both ideologies are mutually exclusive, the fascists were traitors to the Socialist cause (like Mussolini during WW1) and just used Socialism as a branding to appeal to the masses.

Who is right here? Or are both right? Or even wrong?

I read the stg-44 article and I was surprised to find that it was the product of a competition between three competing designs, and that the stg-44 itself was developed from those three competitors, effectively a new gun. Somehow I remember hearing a story that the stg-44 was developed behind hitler's back as a machine pistol/smg or something, but it seems like that story was quite exaggerated.

What do historians consider to have been the first assault rifle?

Idioms are tricky, but this one feels like it might be a military reference, so I have a hunch you guys might be able to help.

I just watched The Physician on Netflix and it made me very curious to learn what people thought the causes of symptoms of diseases were before they understood anything about bacteria and viruses. Treatment is apparent for a broken leg or a cut, but what about fevers? Colds?

[deleted]

How exactly are kingdoms and states defined in this context? Why were the monarchies during the warring states era not called kingdoms and why are the kingdoms in the Three Kingdoms era not called states?

Watching the stream from Juno, I realised I have no idea how the planets were named (in the West).

Hey guys, thanks for any help in advance.

I was just wondering, it seems like such a far-fetched thought to think that Hitler was able to convince the majority of the nation and military to be supportive of the war purely based off of negative views of Jews?

Were there any other reasons for the national/military support? Was there already a negative stigma of Jews?

This has been asked before with no response. The FRY troops must have gone straight through Croatia while they were at war with them in order to get to Slovenia and I find it a little surprising that there are no reports at least of Croatian attempts to sabotage the Yugoslav forces since unlike the Bosniaks Croatians did not have any quarrel with Slovenians as far as I know. Was there any cooperation between Slovenia and Croatia?

From what I know, warships of the 18th century usually used solid round shot against each other to punch holes in the enemy's hull. Why didn't they use explosive shells like the later ironclads did? Wouldn't explosive shells be devastating to both the enemy ship and the crew?

Thanks to u/Aldheim for the suggestion!

I don't know how else to ask this question and it will be probably deleted based on the 20 year rule...but the problem is...that this has been going on since the beginning of recorded history. So since now, we are able to keep tap on the whole world basically within a second or two of events then I was wondering how is the frequency or "sudden rise" of current religious attacks in the middle east compares to the past? i.e the current suicide bombs in Baghdad etc. I mean something similar had to happen in the past but folks just didn't read about it. So does the human nature changes over the decades or does it stay stagnant in the past?

Watching period movies and shows like Gone with the Wind, it seems that for the American elite, they send their children off to university in England. However, it is not so today. When did the elites stopped doing this?

Hello!

In medieval europe and elsewhere, I read about organized battles that had a designated start time. How was this organized? Wouldn't it have always been to the advantage of the forces to attempt a sneak attack?

Hello, and sorry for my bad grammar, English is not my first language.

I always wondered about this yet I haven't read a single history book about this.

From around the 10th to let's say, the early fifteenth century, how likely would it be for peasants from various Middle Ages countries to recognize their monarchs?

There are a number of WW2 myths that seem so pervasive. You'll see them in a huge number of documentaries, run into people discussing them, either out in real life or on the internet, and sometimes even see historians engage in them.

Some of the myths I'm thinking of are ones such as:

I've seen plenty of documentaries discussing the superiority of German armour, throwing out claims that for ever Panzer the Western Allies killed the Germans managed to kill 3, 4, 5, whatever, tanks in return. However, reading books on the battles of Western Europe a lot of the tank battles seem to have the Germans barely exceeding parity in the number of tank kills.

This perhaps ties in with the Sherman tank. Many documentaries, and books, will disparage the Sherman. It was a death trap. It burst into flames at the drop of a hat. It had paper thin armour. Its gun couldn't kill anything. Etc, etc, etc. If only it'd used diesel like German Panzers (Panzers actually used gasoline). Many documentaries will interview old Sherman crews talking about what a death trap their Sherman was. However, quite a few historians will discuss that it really wasn't that bad of a tank.

From the Pacific War you have the Sleeping Giant quote. It seems to be mentioned in quite a lot of documentaries, books, etc. However, it seems that the first time anyone ever heard this quote was in the movie Tora! Tora! Tora!

So, how have these myths, and others like them, managed to become so widespread, not only among the general public, but to the extent that they are quite common in things such as documentaries which you would hope would be better sources of information?

The American Civil War is often credited with spurring various developments in battlefield tactics from learning how to deal with the increased range and accuracy of large numbers of rifled weapons to further developments in field works and early examples of what we might call trench warfare such as at Petersburg in 1864/65. My question is, when Prussia went to war in 1864 and again in 1866 for example, to what extent did lessons learned from the American Civil War (if any at all) influence how forces were deployed at the tactical level?

If I was a low ranking foot soldier, how easy would it be for me to become a high ranking officer? Were promotions only ever a matter of who you knew? Or would a soldier who distinguished himself as a smart and skilled warrior be able to work his way up to general?

I have been trying to find a primary source on this and cant and was wondering if someone could tell me how these fights would be conducted. I see in movies like Kingdom of Heaven and shows like Game of Thrones where Calvary will charge full speed into each other and inevitably kill themselves and their horses. I find this hard to believe so did it happen or how did it really happen?