I'm listening to the American Peril podcast of Hardcore History by Dan Carlin and he keeps talking about how fascinated people were with war in America during this period of the late 1890's. My question is this is only 30 years or so after the Civil War, the most violent conflict in American history that left hundreds of thousands of people dead and huge swaths of the country destroyed. Surely there's still veterans alive who remember how awful it was and civilians as well. How is it that this idea that war was something noble be around? And, how is it, it became so popular?

Hey, first post on this sub, not sure of the extent you guys can help, but I'll give it a shot.

For my GCSE coursework I have to write a 2000 word essay, titled (more or less) "How significant was Nazi Propaganda in the control of Nazi Germany?"

I have covered the width of impact of tools like radio (using the people's receiver, televised speeches etc.), and am now moving onto studying the depth of impact looking at the film industry.

However, I cannot find any sources/info on the actual impact on the population's minds of such propaganda - does anyone have any useful info/sources I could reference that may back up my point that the underlying ideological messages in films such as ‘Jud Süß’ somewhat indoctrinated Germans and made them, in some cases, more loyal/committed to the regime?

Any info/help at all would be thoroughly appreciated!

I understand that everyone thinks that their city is the best place to be, but from what I understood New York in the time was not close to the power center that it would become.

Am I wrong on this? Was it considered one of the world's greatest cities in the time of the American Revolution?

Watching Vice documentaries and reading the news, it seems like terrorists groups arise when a group is disenfranchised and outgunned. People in the 20th century went through horrific episodes that we can hardly imagine now. The flu of 1918, refugees and civilians of WWII, horrific starvation in china just to name a few. How is it that states remained mostly stabilized? Especially since terrorism is a cheap effective way of inflicting mass casualties. Mainly I'm asking, why wasn't there bombings, suicide or otherwise, by non-state entities?

Ok, so obviously we know that food would revolve around geographical location and what was widely available at the time, but what I'm asking is when did things like oil and salt become standard? Did people used to fry meat or was baking the normal standard? Salt is now considered a crucial ingredient in food, but at what point did salt become that way? Did people used to substitute salt for other spices? Also, what do we know about how recipes and ingredients were spread and integrated into the local cuisine?

Hello, i would like to ask which of those nations arrived/occupied central europe first? Countries like today poland/slovakia/czech republic and their neighbors, who was there ''first'' ?

I just began reading Eugene Sledge's book "China Marine" and I'm just looking for more books or information of the overall US occupation or other books or information from individual accounts.

Thanks!!

So when a certain king was called "the Good", "the Wise" etc., how did he earn this? What were the criteria for a good monarch and do how did the medieval ideas of a good monarch differ from our current ideas of a good monarch?

I'm wondering whether people were open-minded enough to admit attraction to these other peoples.

Is the English pronunciation OK to use or is it simply wrong?

Television and cinema / the media use the English pronunciation are they being ignorant or are they simply appealing to the masses by using the pronunciation most will understand? (no offence)

Or is it acceptable to use either? I personally would think not.

Pompey lost the civil war we all know. But it can be argued his achievements rival those of Caesar. I don't know of any documentaries telling the story of Pompey. A man who conquered the eastern Empire for the Romans and cleared the Mediterranean of pirates providing security for trade for his country (to his own benefit as well). Such tremendous achievements and he is still disregarded even though retaining the title of Mangus (the great.) History is written by the victors, but Caesar was disgusted by Pompey's end and respected him. Why are his achievements and life story only known but the most die-hard fans of Roman history?

More specifically, what would have been the drug of choice used to treat a highly aggressive patient circa 1890? Was restraint the only available option?

See title. Also, if there is a difference how much is it linked to the rise of technology?

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar was an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court when he died on January 23rd, 1893. President Benjamin Harrison of the Republican Party was a lame duck, already having been voted out of office. 2 short months later Grover Cleveland would return back to the position he had left 4 years prior. In that short span, he managed to appoint and successfully confirm a replacement for Lamar--a Democrat previously appointed by Cleveland--with another Democrat, this time Howell Edmunds Jackson. So my question is, why didn't Harrison ultimately wait for Cleveland to take office if he were merely going to appoint a Justice of the party/political persuasion that was about to take over the presidency, and how was he successful in getting unanimous support for it--something that is rarely seen in modern times?

Hello, I come with questions about Constantinople. I have three questions.

1. How come the ancient Greeks never founded a city where Constantinople was and if so, why wasn't it as successful?
2. During the Greek revolt in the 1800's, why wasn't Constantinople given to the Greeks? Wouldn't that be beneficial towards countries like Russia who would've had better access through the Bosphorus as the Greeks would have good relations with them due to Russia being a big reason Greece was liberated?
3. When the Ottomans fell and Turkey was founded, why did Turkey remain in control of Constantinople? (Or Istanbul if you want to be specific.) Wouldn't it make sense for the Greeks to own all of the European part while Turkey owned all of the Anatolian part?

[deleted]

We are hearing a lot from all the presidential candidates in the news lately and we all know who the president is right now (Barack Obama)--but who was the first president ever of the United States? I went on wikipedia and it seems very unclear.

It's one thing I can never find a good answer to. It seems like if German-Austria had been allowed to join the German Republic it would've take a whole lot of steam from the Nazis. It was the goal of most Pan-germanists that weren't Nazis as well. Also seems to me it would've been a good idea to make the German Reich a constitutional monarchy instead of a republic, but that's a whole nother can of worms. And I know they only did it because of commies, but thats besides the point.

Immediately after WW1, almost every Austro-German wanted to join Germany. Why did anyone think it was a good idea to prevent it?

I know that not everyone was down for it when the anschluss actually happened near WW2 and it's pretty controversial, and mentioning it nowadays is pretty taboo, but right after WW1 it was really popular, and would've saved a lot of people a lot of stress.

Why the heck weren't the Germans allowed to unite? Poor sods.

I know the hill was outside the pomerium originally and was used as a "transit depot" for aliens coming into Rome.