I'm kind of confused on why both churches went so far as to excommunicate each other.

How did the early TV industry decide on the 4:3 aspect ratio?

(I'm not sure if this'd break the rules)

How was the more recent 16:9 ratio decided?

Thanks!

If you guys can find anything could you give me a source as well please that would be great.

If Winston Churchill was a major functional alcoholic, he must have needed a crack support team to complete the enormous amount of work required of a head of state.

• Is there an unsung hero, or team of people, who did Churchill's work behind the scenes?
• What were Churchill's daily responsibilities?
• How did Churchill's workload compare to other British heads of state?
• Did his drinking get in the way of his work?
• Did he need help? Was his alcoholism under control?

It seems to me that there is a common narrative in the Western world that France was the most "innocent" of all the nations when it comes to responsibility for the First World War. It comes off as though France was subject to an unprovoked, aggressive assault from Germany, and fought only to defend itself. To what degree is this interpretation supported by evidence? Are there things France did, or intentionally "failed" to do which could have prevented the war? Was France, in a Bismarkian way, encouraging the war because it hoped to gain from it? Essentially what I am asking is if France is as "innocent" as it seems to be in the view which contends Germany to be the true aggressor of the war. If supporting the view that all nations were essentially equally responsible, and the blame of Germany is simply a case of history being written by the victors, was France more or less responsible than any other nation?

... large a percentage of German born babies after WWII was a product of rape?

I'm pretty sure this is false, but after my friend made this claim and multiple people agreed with him, I'm starting to doubt myself.

Apologies of this has been asked before, I checked the FAQ and did a search and didn't find anything exactly matching what I'm asking.

Washington is often seen as one of our greatest and most respected presidents, but if you viewed him through the same eyes of today that President Obama is viewed through, what would be the biggest criticisms of his administration? Were there any campaign promises he failed to deliver on? Did he or anyone in his cabinet mishandle any situations?

Keep in mind, I'm not asking for dirt on Washington. Rather I'm asking what his presidency would look like to someone viewing it at the time, and not as history.

To put it simply: was anyone open to the idea of intelligent aliens 1000 years ago?

Or other similar inventions.

I saw a Segregation era sign from (I think) Texas that said something along the lines of "No Negros, No Mexicans, No Spanish". I assumed the "No Spanish" bit was intended to make sure that other non-Mexican Latin Americans got the hint but I got to wondering if light-skinned Spainards from Europe that were traveling in the US would also be effected by these kinds of policies?

I suppose this is partially philosophy and partially theology, but perhaps its more likely Historians can give a factual answer:

As main part of the Ontological argument for the existence of God, it's posited that God must existed due to existence being a feature of perfection. The rebuttals to the Ontological argument typically attack the idea of existence itself being a feature, or the layout of the premises. However, what I notice is that the idea of perfection being necessarily a feature of God is never a focus of questions. This seems to me to be very odd. How did we get from the Old Testament God, who is wrathful and jealous according to the Bible itself, all the way to God being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent? It doesn't seem at all obvious that any of these traits need to be inherent to any entity with power beyond our understanding.

It seems slightly less prevalent in Asian men and women but historically, especially in places where we have many portraits and busts, such as Greece and Rome, did folks, especially men, go bald as often as they do now?

The attempt of uniformization and subjugation of the regions conquered by the empire (Syria, Germania, etc) really reminds me of the modern colonialism. The distinction of "barbarian" and the sentiment that the Romans are the "more civilized", the "more sophisticated", the "benevolent power" that bring light to the savages, too, reminds me of colonialism.

This is a wild, uneducated guess of course. But is it possible to see Roman Empire as a colonialism rather than a civilization?

remove post