Info was gotten from Mike Duncan and the History of Rome Podcast.

Not sure if this the right subreddit for this, sorry if it isn't.

I'm curious if there is a distinction made officially between locations that were abandoned as opposed to evacuated, I.E Hashima Island vs Pripyat. Is there a name besides ghost town for Pripyat?

I was told by my friend just now that Pripyat is considered a dead city, and Hashima a ghost town. Is he chatting shit or is this an actual distinction that is made?

Obviously that is usually unenforceable, but if someone admitted that he wrote a work and then went hunting for sources to back his assertions, would his book automatically lose legitimacy?

I stumbled across this quote from a German soldier when reading about the death of Quentin Roosevelt (Teddy's youngest son), it talks about how Germany tried to use it as propaganda, but it backfired.

This young officer told my brother the following in substance, concerning the effect upon the Germans at the falling of your son Quentin. That when he fell the fact was heralded throughout the German army, and throughout the Central powers. That photos of his grave and his wrecked plane were published and exhibited profusedly far and wide. That the German authorities believed it to be good propaganda, with which to hearten both the soldiers and the people at home. But that it had the opposite effect and produced as far as they were concerned a negative effect or result. That no sooner had Quentin fallen but that it was whispered from ear to ear, from trench to trench. That in it one could see how in free America everybody was fighting. That though America was in the war only for a short time, the son of an American President, engaged in one of the most dangerous lines of service, was lying back of the German lines, while their country had been at war three years and that neither the Kaiser, nor any of his sons were ever so much as scratched. That it gave the soldiers a vision of the democracy of America, and helped to deepen the feeling that they, the common soldiers, were only cannon fodder for the Kaiser. That it made real to them the difference between autocracy and democracy, of which they had heard so much. That this feeling spread like wild fire, not only throughout the army, but also among the people at home. That those elements in Germany that were opposed to the war seized upon it and en- larged the suggestion. This young officer de- clared that in the judgment of many this was the largest single factor in the breaking of the morale of the German Army.

I couldn't find other sources about this example specifically, but in a general sense, did the average German soldier resent the Kaiser, and was this a factor leading to Germany's defeat?

I recently saw the movie "The Great Dictator" and this question rose to my mind. Were they regarded somewhat better than the rest of the Jewish population or were they treated the same as everyone else?

[deleted]

And how effective were they? What evidence do we have of them? How would a woman have access to them- were some/all legal, or would it have been secret? Was a commoner living outside Tenochtitlan likely to have easier access than any other social class living within? How commonly would they be used?

Sorry for all the questions, btw.

I know the M26 served in the ETO for roughly 4 months until Germany surrendered in April. It served in very small numbers, and never took over for the M4A3s it was supposed to replace.

It later served in Korea, though it would take a while to bring them into the country in any meaningful number. Most of the fighting was done by M4A3E8 Sherman Easy-Eights, which were approximately equal to the North Korean T34/85. The development of the Pershing was used in the development of the Patton line of medium tanks.

Considering the Pershing saw only minimal service in World War II, and was not deployed significantly to Korea, was it in anyway influential to the conflicts it took part in?

I've read about how big of a deal the rise of the mujahadeen was in the spread of jihadist movements in the Middle East. Why did the USSR go in there in the first place?

I know how bitterly fought the previous war and how horrifying the sacking of Smyrna was. Were the Greek and Turkish goverments worried about social instability between their greek and turkish subjects after the invasion of 1920 to 1923?

Thank you in advance for answers.

France considered Algeria as an integral entity within the country. When Algeria was absorbed by France in 1848, 3 departments were made in Oran, Algiers, and Constantine. From then on, France began assimilating Algeria into France, culturally (proposing assimilation policies for native Algerians), politically (departments), and invited their own citizens, as well as others, to live in French Algeria (Pied-Noirs). This fanned the flames for Algeria to break away from France as soon as possible, even though France implemented less stricter policies (Algerians were all French citizens from decree in the mid 1940s).

When war came, the battle lines were drawn, and it felt like a war among people. It broke Algeria, and after a long struggle, the nation had its independence in 1962, and the Pied-Noirs, prominent French citizens, and others left Algeria for their homeland.

This is an abstract question, but I hope it's ok to ask. If this would be better asked on a different subreddit, please let me know. I apologize for the sensitive nature of the question.

I don't think many would contest that whites in the west have tremendous power and advantage, relative to non-whites in the west. Is there any degree to which or sense in which this situation was influenced by past racial philosophy held by whites (particularly during the colonial era) - that whites are in one way or another inherently superior to non-whites?

Or is it possible that the racial philosophy developed in response to the situation in which whites found themselves (in a situation of disproportionate power and wealth)? Did reflecting on their own success and the disparity between themselves and non-whites inform their racial philosophies?

Can both be true?

In my head, it only makes sense that one showed it off to the other, but I'd like to know if there was a full story involved or if it was just purely coincidence.

Early in the US Civil War, there were people referring to Gen. George B. McClellan as "the Young Napoleon". Nowadays, I gather from McPherson that most people think his name is mud. What were the vicissitudes of his reputation? Is the Wikipedia page accurate in quoting Allan Nevins on his memoir notes and letters, "Students of history must always be grateful McClellan so frankly exposed his own weaknesses in this posthumous book."? I don't think his reputation could have suffered so badly in his life, or he wouldn't have been Governor of New Jersey 1878-1881, or had a shot at being Secretary of War for Grover Cleveland.

(Is there a term for the study of this specific sort of question, changes in views of historical events?)

[deleted]

I really am confused. Was Hildago and other people on his side mad at the leadership of joseph bonaparte or the people before him? Or did Napoleons revolt tell Hildago's people that they should revolt since it's a good time? I thought like possibly all the leaders combined made bad choices in spain causing Mexico to want to fight against the spaniards. In addition, was Charles the one leader who made the Mexico people start to feel the need to change? All the forums and history websites I have read don't seem to connect completely.

Basically my question is why did christianity(coming from the middle east) spread or become the norm in europe while the "original" european religions/beliefs died out? seems weird to me that europeans would follow teachings of a middle eastern man so religiously.