Looking at christian history, you find many different hair styles, and none of them are like Jesus, who had long hair and long beard.

Actually, as you reach the modern era, you find long haired/bearded people actively discriminated against more and more by christians (think hippies)

How come christians believe in a long haired, long bearded messiah, yet dislike having such hair and beard themselves, and some of them actually consider these undesirable traits, worth discriminating against?

Not sure if this is allowed to ask here but I'm genuinely curious: I've visited this sub a few times in the last year or so and the questions seem to be becoming increasingly specific, i.e. focused on a very tiny fragment of history, often something you have never thought about. This is of course interesting and legitimate etc.

Still, I feel like these types of questions get a lot more attention and gain more traction (upvotes, responses etc.) than all the "big history" or "big why" questions (which personally, I find more interesting, but that's just subjective of course).

The Marshall Plan helped Western European countries with economic aid and to rebuild their infrastructure and industrial bases after WW2.

My question is why didn't countries in Asia like the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Indochina etc. didn't receive large amounts of aid from the US after WW2. Those countries where badly damaged and the people were suffering. So why didn't the US made a plan for that?

Many American television shows and films show teenagers entering each other's bedrooms by climbing through second-story windows (A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984, Heathers in 1989, Clarissa Explains It All in 1991-1994, Forrest Gump in 1994, Rushmore in 1998, and more recently Never Have I Ever and Ginny & Georgia, both in 2021). Usually it's for romantic purposes, though sometimes it's just for general mischief with a friend.

Is this purely a narrative device, or did/do a lot of American teenagers do this? Does it have anything to do with the architectural styles of American homes and the ease of climbing them? Is this even American at all?

I'm sure this question has been asked many times, but I'm genuinely curious to know exactly how much knowledge Germany's allies had about the Holocaust. Moreover, did either Italy or Japan voice any opposition to Germany's policies during the Holocaust?

Seems today everyone believes in something lol. Many people believe in crazy stuff like new world order and plans for mass depopulation.

Has this always been a thing? Or more recent?

What kind of conspiracies did people believe in, anything comparable to new world order typa thing?

Thanks:)

I’ve always wondered why exactly the M4 Sherman’s had a tendency to burst into flames once hit by enemy tank shells. Hopefully, I can find some empirical data/information from you guys!

Was it due to the shell type of say the Panzer III’s (Like a high-velocity armour piercing) or maybe the poor stowage of shells in the M4 Sherman? From what I can theorize, it was due to the friction caused upon penetration, coupled with the poor stowage of the ammunition, is this correct?

I found an answer on Quora but I’m a bit hesitant to let that be the end-all to my inquiry.

Thanks to those who answer! 😄

I know the first ascent was recorded being in the early 1900's, but are there any surviving records of someone at least attempting it? Perhaps to see if the God's were really there? Or was it more considered as taboo to even think of doing such a thing?

Hello, the title is the exact copy past of another post made more than 2 years ago but that basically got no answers, so I allowed myself to ask the question again because im highly interested in it. Like I understand in the very first days the tutsis were tricked into locations like stadiums and churches thinking the gov would protect them so basically hutus had no fear to have and could exit those places but tutsis stayed for protection so basically anyone there could get killed since it was by design all tutsis and that was a big part of the victims count. But concerning the tutsis that weren't inside those places, considering the fact that they now knew any hutu would want to kill them so showing your tutsi ID wasn't an option anymore, how would hutus identify tutsis without ID cards, was it like behavioral hints ? Or maybe their non biological physical appearance like the way they are dressed and their material belongings ? A combination of both ? Or is it those physical traits they talk about like noses and other biological physical appearance ? From what I know from my research online and from real life they talk a lot about the nose more than any other physical trait, even till today, is it true ? Were some tutsis already doomed because they couldn't change the way their face looked like ?

Also one of the reason im highly interested in this question is because all the time they talk about ID card showing tutsi on it so they got killed, but after a few days since the genocide started it was clear that anyone including the government was trying to kill you so it makes no sense for rational beings to show their ID just to die right after, yet, this genocide was massive with estimates stating that 80% of the total victim count was achieved by just one month after it started, if you take the 1 million victim estimate that would give you 800 000 victims in a month with almost all tutsis from the interior killed during this genocide, and I'm wondering how could they kill so many people just with ID cards alone, that seems so nonsensical, did they finished anyone that didn't have an ID on him/her ? I know that it's a small country very rural and stuff so you also had neighbours that would know you are a tutsi, but if you weren't anymore in your neighborhood/village, how was it possible to identify somebody that is supposed to look exactly like "your" people, as mentioned in the title, couldn't tutsis pass themselves as hutus ?

Btw im not questionning the fact that id cards weren't a reason for why tutsis were killed, im just saying it seems weird you can kill almost all of them with cards alone, i never questioned that fact in my post actually but im just putting this disclaimer here just in case, never know.

Sorry for the long question/post.

Are there any major flaws with his research or how he portrays events?

So the idea revolves around an older, wealthy woman of some power and her man servant. The story would involve them both joining the Home Guard, but with his army background meaning that in their unit, he now outranks her, with the tension of the change in power being the driver of the narrative.

Obviously, I'm taking certain liberties here, but is any of it completely implausible, or, not enitrely respectful?

If anyone is knowledgeable about the Home Guard, I'd love to hear any stories or details. Thanks!

It seems to be fairly well established that from roughly the middle of the 12th century until the beginning of the 14th, Swedish power in the area of modern Finland grew and expanded eastwards until the whole area west of Viborg had fallen under Swedish rule. But the specifics of this expansion seem fraught with controversy and debate, and amongst it all it is difficult to get a clear picture of how most historians view that political development.

To what extent was the expansion violent? Most traditional depictions seem to lean towards "very", but I've found other works that argue that some local landowners and political leaders may have supported the expansion of the Swedish political system and welcomed it as a way to advance their standing. Presumably with eastern groups like the Karelians having a similar relationship to Novgorod.

How christian were the various groups living in Finland prior to the so called crusades? Here most traditional depictions and primary sources agree that the enemies of the Christian Swedes were pagans who were defeated and the country was made Christian. But that seems like an overly simple interpretation, particularly in light of the criticism that has been levied against a clear cut Christian-Pagan dichotomy by people like Anders Winroth (2012).

What was the character of the Swedish colonization of Finnish coastal areas and how extensive was it? This particularly seems like a contentious topic, considering its connections to later social conflict between Swedish-speakers and Finnish-speakers during the Grand Duchy of Finland and the current social and political climate of the country. How was this colonization conducted? Was it mostly done on the initiative of individuals and families, or, as one article I read suggested, a venture sponsored by the Swedish crown and church, shipping in colonists in large boats? To what extent did the settlers displace the locals? Sawyer (1993) depicts Uuismaa/Nyland as depopulated following the second Swedish crusade, but that seems a bit extreme.

Finally, what literature should I look into to further my knowledge of the topic? I know Swedish and English, I wish I knew Finnish but as of the present, I do not.

The idea of the Schlieffen Plan was to knock out 1 enemy and then deal with the other, I was wondering why Germany did not consider Russia to do so instead of France. I can see multiple major advantages:

1. I understand that Britain itself joined the war over the issue of Belgian nuetrality, so if Germany had maintained a defensive Western front , there was no need to violate Belgian nuetrality. Also it would work the other way around also disabling France from launching an offensive into Germany. This would leave a MUCH smaller front to defend - the Franco-German border. The major takeaway here is British nuetrality and only the Franco-German border to defend
2. From my understanding, everyone at that time considered Russia to be militarily inferior to France and Germany post their loss in the Russo- Japanese war. It would have made sense to attack the weaker member of the Entente first? Moreover Russia was bordered by 3 of the Central powers making it possibly 2 front war/offensive.
3. Russia was on the verge of revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution was the reason that Russia backed out of the war and this could've been hastened with a strong German offensive into Russia directly.Proabably Hitler's remark could've been apt here about "1 kick and the whole rotten structure will coming crashing down" comment.

I understand that Russia was probably much harder to invade especially quickly than France, but I was just wondering about why this never gets discussed.

PS: This is my first post on any history sub and I am a history fan(amateur too), I was just curious about this while reading about the July Crisis. Please forgive me if I have made any errors in my statements

Also, was there any “ick factor” to be overcome at first? Any popular alternatives besides sealing wax?

I seriously doubt that Apartheid ended simply because international sanctions heated up. I'm sure sanctions played a role, but we seldom hear about the internal politics of South Africa in the final years of Apartheid. Who were the multiple factions involved, and what actually brought the Apartheid government to the table with the African National Congress? Why did Mandela become the opposition leader? Why was South Africa involved in a war with its neighbors at the time?

At the very least, there's usually one Italian- and one Polish-sounding name. Sometimes it goes so far as having Privates Kowalski, DiNicolo, and Beaudine all in the same squad with Sergeant Ortega, under the command of Captain O'Hoolihan. Would this have been common, or is it writers' shorthand for showing off the ol' melting pot? Just how diverse (for a segregated military, anyway) was the typical American unit?

And, a related question, were certain groups more represented in certain branches or roles? I can see Jewish and Chinese Americans wanting to fight the Germans and Japanese in particular, and perhaps enlisting in the Army (Europe) or Navy/Marines (Pacific) to get a shot at them.

All the books or tv series I have seen about the American Civil War depict McClellan as a poor and indecisive leader. Is this assessment fair or is it an overstatement? What do military historians generally think of him? Thanks

It's not until late and post war that the Royal Navy would receive newer strike aircraft such as Firefly, Firebrand or Sea Fury. What cause the delaying of these aircraft ?

We often hear of Norse settlers converting to Christianity, but I've never come across anything that indicates that it also worked the other way around. I don't doubt that there were probably opportunistic individuals to converted to gain favor with the Norse. But are there any mentions of large portions of the Anglo-Saxon population in Danelaw, like potentially whole villages, converting?

This is all presuming that there were Anglo-Saxons to convert, I would also be curious to hear if maybe we don't have mentions of this because many of them fled to neighboring kingdoms.