So I am no expert in Chinese history, but it seems clear that it was somewhat taboo to criticise Mao and his decisions. After his death, obviously there were quite a lot of reforms in the late seventies and eighties. I assume this was at least generally accepted within the politburo, as I imagine they would have been severely limited if not. I am more curious as to how these reforms were viewed by the Chinese people, particularly the working and middle classes (I don't really know if the "middle class" was all that big at the time). Was it generally viewed as a good idea? Were there groups that saw it as some sort of betrayal?

Thanks for any knowledge you have to share on the topic.

When a Commonwealth country such as Canada or Australia has a Governor-General, is he or she expected to use his/her own judgment with respect to issues that come before him/her from time to time? Or are they given instructions from the Crown when they're first appointed? Or are they regularly in contact with London?

How about earlier examples such as Roman provincial governors or prefects (Pontius Pilate comes to mind) or Spanish viceroys in Spanish America, or British governors in the Thirteen Colonies or pre-telegraph India?

I'm not looking for a definite answer to this question, but I'm rather interested in the different facts, studies, and discussions that exist regarding this subject.

In the early modern era, Sweden was known to be a deeply Lutheran country, so Lutheran in fact, that it was sometimes thought of (especially by the Swedish aristocracy and clergy) to be the ultimate defender of the Lutheran faith. I'm under the impression that it was still very religious at the start of the 20th century, however only half a century later, religion seemed to play a far smaller role in public life, and today, Sweden is amongst the least religious societies in the world.

I think it's especially interesting if one compares Sweden to the USA which also is Western, went through similar societal changes during the 20th century, but remained very influenced by religion and still is today. An interesting difference is that USA was a secular society from the start, whereas Sweden didn't become secular until 2000 when the church officially was declared not to be a state institution. Did religion perhaps play different roles in public life in the two countries already at the start of the 20th century?

I know my question reads like something that would be in a 12th grade history class, but I am kind of curious and I wouldn't know where to look for reliable information on the subject.

I do realize that my question might sound insensitive, But I believe that it is very hard to change someone ideas or beliefs on such a large scale, and considering that the party had a large support base I can't assume that they were all prosecuted; So what happened?

My question is regarding the Nazi Party and less about Hitler or the leadership.

I like researching ancient facts, but cannot find anything about the titanomachy if it was 'real'.

Since Britain had signed a treaty protecting Poland why did Britain only declare war on Germany and not Russia as well since they both invaded Poland?

Maybe there's an /r/numismatics that would be better for this question, I have a tough time believing that people who worked the land/tended the flocks were immediately won over immediately by precious metals - seeing as how fearful of change people can be.

The series is set in the early 20th century, and the procedure causes the woman in question to have a large patch of exposed flesh, where the skin is taken from.

I'm sure that this has probably been asked before but i'd like any input on the historical perspective of Jesus. Is there common consensus that such a person even existed? If so, what does the historical record say about how he was viewed by historians in the centuries following his death? In short, tell me whatever you know as historical fact about this man. Thanks!

Can anyone here, on the Reddit, inform me as to why Rommel refused to execute his prisoners in Africa? It seems like it goes against the grain too hard to chalk it up to "he was an alright fella". Was it just because he was, in fact, an alright fella, or was there some... deeper, I guess, reason, like a different sort of upbringing or something that set him apart from other German officers? Or am I just looking at it from a nonsensical point of view and asking an idiotic question?

I'm studying Sengoku Japan. I'm now looking into Mitsuhide turning on Nobunaga.

What's the accepted view of Mitsuhide's part in Nobunaga's downfall? I've read that Mitsuhide's mother was killed in response to what Nobunaga did in a hostage situation and Mitsuhide turned on Nobunaga for that, along with how Mitsuhide was insulted by Nobunaga over and over, etc. What was Mitshide trying to do? What was he out for?

It seems strange to me, considering almost every other European language pronounces it with a hard V, or as a variant of the Latin Varsovia. Has it always been pronounced with a Germanic w in English, or was this a hypercorrection?

My professor wants us to "contribute something unique to the historiography of a subject." It's making me have a particularly hard time finding research topics.

I was wondering if someone could steer me towards a less studied propaganda topic, doesn't have to be ww2.

I have always wonder, since today is pirate day on reddit, do pirates actually talk like this or is this a false portrayal hollywood filmed? If not, is there documents that show of how pirates talked?

Communist leaders like Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot are often criticized for their actions that killed many people or for repressing political discourse. How come Jiang Jieshi is generally never brought up in these discussions for things like White Terror or the 1938 flood? Is this born out of an anti-communist attitude from the Cold War?