So if the study of history is mostly done through analysis of documents, both primary and otherwise how does the actual physical record left behind by cultures factor into the way that study? Is there a lot of dialogue between these disparate fields or are they both working on different images of the same past?

Is there a book or story of any Allied troops capturing and befriending enemy troops during World War II? I've heard about a moment during Christmas when troops met without hostilities. I've heard about a similar moment during the American Civil War. But is there any evidence whatsoever that soldiers who met as enemies during the Great War became lifelong friends after it?

At the end of World War I why did the victorious parties elect not to break Germany up into the many minor states it had been previously? The empire had only existed for about 40 years at that point. Were there any proposals to divide up the country that simply were not accepted, or was the task of setting up that many new governments deemed too costly?

My teacher says it, my mom says it, but they dont give a reason.

i like history, im just curious

I live in Australia and like most previous colonial/imperial outposts of the British Empire and other European Empires, we have a particularly awful legacy of treatment of the indigenous population. National pride about the 'Aussie Battler' idea is a large part of our cultural narrative on how we view ourselves and our past. However, there is very little discussion about our the darker shades of our past.

How much responsibility do we have towards the good and bad parts of our nation's past? If we are going to embrace the positive aspects, say the ANZAC's, shouldn't we also be mindful of the negative, like the Stolen Generation or White Australia Policy?

Since the HRE was mostly German, and especially after they lost most of Italy, and considering that Slavs haven't always been viewed in the most favourable light in Western Europe, were there any negative perceptions of Bohemia among the mostly German nobility within the HRE? And if there were, did this change at all after the Habsburgs absorbed the kingdom?

Assuming that, despite the vast forces involved, the Germans are somehow able to hold the beaches and throw the Allied invasion forces back into the English Channel. What would Eisenhower and the other Allied leaders do if D-Day had failed and the walls of Fortress Europe had stood firm? Would it have given enough leverage to the Germans that they could force an armistice or ceasefire or would the Allies regroup and try again? What would the effects of such a victory have been on morale on both sides?

Apologies if this isnt the right sub but sidebar indicates that events older than 20 years can be asked.

I know the collapsing of U.S.S.R is a powerful factor but, even then there was a 5 year gap between the only Buran launch and the collapsing of U.S.S.R.

Also can't modern Russia utilize them now with being a major spacefaring nation?

Title says it all

Especially since their leader Lee Kuan Yu wanted to be kept in it.

I've read that one of the various reasons that Judaism did not accept Jesus as the prophecies messiah is because the Messiah was supposed to build a third temple. What I'm curious about; the second temple wasn't destroyed until 70AD or so, so in the lifetime of the historical Jesus it was still standing correct? So why was there a prophecy of a third temple needing to be built when there was already a temple standing, and the various Jews living at the time did not know this temple would eventually be destroyed? I'm not a religious person so I doubt any supernatural explanation, I am interested in the historical realities of the period.

The Rome section on the reading list is a bit dated. I was hoping to get some suggestions on books for learning about two things: the history of Rome and daily life in a Roman city (circa 100 BC - 300 AD) . Feel free to suggest any books you think I would enjoy. Thanks!

Seeing as how they'd just finished their very bloody revolution that had deposed the old regime, why did they so easily except another de facto monarchy? Especially when he even used the title "Emperor", which is obviously very evocative of the Roman Caesars. Were the people just tired of all the bloodshed, and decided that relative stability was worth it?

There was a video on the front page the other day about a guy saying that wars were simply to bully other countries for the sake of the wealthy. And I look at stuff like Vietnam, gulf war, Afghanistan and think these were nonsense, why did we even go in there? But was ww1 or ww2 different? Was there a real threat that needed to be dealt with or just another opportunity for the wealthy?

I have heard many drug experts say the different banning of drugs and pursuit of drug criminals was racist. For example, targetting cocaine was due to a racist efforts against blacks.

Is there any evidence this is actually racist? And I define racist as "intentionally racist," not just "consequentially racist." As such, is there historical evidence that policy makers pursued these policies to intentionally be racist, and if only white people did these crimes and the corresponding violence, these laws would not have been passed?