[deleted]

I started reading up on WWII recently and it always surprises me that Japan somehow managed to start a full scale land invasion of China. I don't understand the history of this well, but from my modern perspective of what China and Japan are respectively as military powers, If Japan tried to do that they wouldn't just lose, they would get flattened, if China wanted to they could completely demolish Japan, how was this different during WWII?

Mongolia is the world's least densely populated country. I can't imagine how they would have effective propaganda anywhere outside Ulaanbaatar, or how they would've done any sort of rationing to their nomadic population. Were there any attempts to ration to the nomadic peoples and suppress their shamanistic religions? How effective were these attempts?

I seem to recall that muslim houses have bathrooms for men and women separated, that's where the second question comes from. Basically, did the split only happen in places of entertainment, and why? When?

[deleted]

I do remember a certain disbelief when Reagan was elected, but I'm not sure exactly how widespread it was, or how much of an "it'll never happen - oh, it happened" moment it was.

This can apply to the west as well as the east. I am asking if art tended to reflect cultural trends and social norms, or if art tended to create cultural trends and social norms

Clarification: I'm asking about barbecues as in the piece of equipment with which you barbecue food.

Yes, I know surnames didn't exist back then, and any genealogies going that far (before the late Middle Ages) are controversial at best. I'm not asking for specific families either, just whether or not it is safe to assume that at least some unidentified families likely maintained wealth and status throughout history. Did the Middle Ages allow for some continuity in this sense? Or do family/social dynamics in general usually eventually mix everything up anyway?

EDIT: "Is it safe to assume that*" Sorry for the cluster of typos.

I recently listened to a couple of Hitler speeches and he did not have a strong Austrian or Southern German accent. How does it come?

[deleted]

There was a mention in a post about the movie Gladiator that said they left such promotions out for fear of it appearing anachronistic, but the link said only that.

Before and during World War I France had one of the most powerful militaries in the world and owned vast colonies overseas. Why was the French Navy so much smaller than their British or German (or even American) counterparts?

And as follow-up questions: Why didn't the French navy participate in the big naval clashes in the North Sea (Dogger bank, Jutland etc) alongside their British allies? What were some of the French naval achievements or disasters during the Great War? They fought in Dardanelles and had skirmishes with the Austro-Hungarian navy, didn't they.

Context: WWII or your area of expertise.

I am curious, as to why armies (e.g. Soviet) concentrated on making and using tanks of a single design (e.g. T-34, T-55) whereas this concept did not apply to navies. I can see why it's advantageous to use the same design on land for AFVs but I can't see why this wouldn't carry over to navies, surely it's easier to lay down the hulls for 10-20 at a time of the same ship and mass produce the components for those ships rather than to do a batch of half a dozen ships, finish them, then build a completely different design after?

I know the movie isn't accurate at many points, but I was wondering how true this part would have been.