They were already controlling Greece and were very close to Turkey. Turkey was also newly founded and very weak. So they could have defeated Turkey in a relatively short time. Why didn't they choose that path?

In hindsight, giving arms and funding to religious fundamentals/extremists seems like a bad decision.

What were the alternatives (if there were any?). Was control over Afghanistan particularly significant to the soviets, and the denial of it therefore particularly important? Was the Soviet-Afghan war particularly central to the decline of the USSR (what with it turning into a money pit)?

I'm sorry if this seems like several questions, I didn't know how else to phrase it.

I have been reading the story of Enigma and find it fascinating, how it lead to the birth of modern computing, the sheer brilliance of cracking it, its importance in the war.... incredible story. However, it made me wonder, how did the Allies encrypt their messages?

A little elaboration, I'm very interested in the period of time when Guns started to become prevalent in every day life of the Chinese. I understand that they had gunpowder weaponry for a long time, but I want to know when a man would own a pistol or musket. For instance, would there be a clash of sword/spear and gun? What time period would that of been?

Who were the influential people who drove this kind of thinking? What were the catalytic events? What is its current situation?

I've just finished watching the 1970 film and was wondering how historical it was. What inaccuracies were there in the film. Also With the whole of Europe against him how could he have continued to rule if he'd won Waterloo?

George Washington and Mozart lived in the same time period, but how far did Mozart's music spread in the 1780's-1790's? His music was popular in Europe at that time but would it have taken much longer to spread to America, or were there preformances of his music in America where it would have been possible for someone like George Washington to hear it?

I just finished watching Fury (which is fantastic, by the way), and it sparked my curiosity a bit. I've heard that it's generally quite accurate historically, but in the opening scene there is a text preface that says how far superior the German tanks were to the Allied tanks. Were they actually, or is this more of a Hollywood trope than actual historical fact?

Edit: Wow thanks for the in depth replies, everyone. Lots of great information and some additional reading material. Further, can anyone suggest any good books about tank warfare and tactics during WWII. I see /u/124876720 referenced a book called Panthers Vs Shermans: Battle Of The Bulge 1944 which I intend to check out, but is there anything additional I should read on this topic?

As I recall, the UK didn't manage to pay the US back till the early oughties, but I don't think other European countries that received post-war US aid had the same problem.

This fact seems to be a very big deal to some British people I've spoken to, but I don't remember it being brought up in AP US History at all. I'm skeptical of how WWII is covered by the basic history classes in either country.

I don't know much about them but I'm curious why we don't use them anymore and what lead to their downfall as a form of transportation. I want to be a zeppelin expert by the time I'm done with this thread!

It's pretty clear that artwork has always been an important way to convey messages and paint a picture of the times, but why was it that things such as cave artwork, ancient (such as Mesopotamian and Babylonian) sculptures, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman artwork, and even religious works from the Middle Ages seem so basic and crude in comparison to art styles that arose in the Renaissance era? Why has realism never been a priority for early artists? It would make sense that cave painters couldn't exactly dedicate time to something as trivial as art, but especially with civilizations bringing more free time to people as well as people becoming artists for a living, why did we not see realism until so late?

It's my understanding that failed attempts to pass legislation to criminalize lynching in the early-mid 20th century were numerous and repeatedly blocked or filibustered by southern Democratic senators. But how would this legislation have helped? Wasn't lynching already illegal, as the perpetrators could be charged with murder?

And it's not even two and a bit. It's almost three times the size of India.

I give those two as they are two I have heard about.

The Hyskos (for anyone interested) were a Semite kingdom in Egypt. The Hyskos ruled from 1720 BC to 1550 BC until Kamose drove them out. Shortly after Kamose's brother, Ahmose, assumed power. Ahmose apparently initiated the New Kingdom period and I am wondering why. Egypt being united again? Kamose was the last of the 17th dynasty of Egypt. I am thinking perhaps enough time had passed with enough leaders included in the Middle Kingdom that we move on to the New Kingdom.

I asked this question somewhat off-handedly a few weeks ago in a different thread, but to no avail. So I'm here asking again in a dedicated thread with some additional questions/observations.

1. Does it become primary source when the author is "significant"? Meaning classism, sexual, racism could affect the transition.

2. Does it become primary source when there is enough corroboration all saying roughly the same thing?

3. Does it just depend on the event in question? How qualified the author is on the topic at hand?

4. There seems to be a focus on using primary sources from those who "lived" the event, but anecdotes are frowned upon? What is an anecdote but someone's account of what they Experienced?

When slaves became free, some of them went on to become slave owners and sellers themselves. How did those free-men treat their slaves?