I've read that for the most part the Finns didn't push past their prewinter war boarders but I recall on world war 2 YouTube series that the Finns attempted to push into East Karelia. Did the Finns attempt to expand their territories past their previous boarder? And by extention what was the extend of their involvement in ww2?

I know the sort of broad strokes of the plan-they weren't actually going to take everything, just West Russia and let the Soviets have the rest, though I've heard some sources say that the border was going to be along the Urals but others, the A-A (Astrakhan-Arkhangelsk) Line, please let me know which one, I also know that there were four planned Reichskommissariats: Ukraine, Ostland (Baltic states and Belarus), Kaukasien/Kaukasus (pretty much everything south of, IIRC, Stalingrad), and Moskowien (the rest), and that they were going to prepare the lands for later annexation with their main goals being promoting German colonization and killing off the local Slavic population, both through concentration camps and using them as labor-but what were the finer details? Why not get rid of the Soviets completely? Were certain units designated to protect the RKs? What city names would be changed (all I remember is that most were going to just become the German versions of their English names, plus Krasnodar was gonna become Katerinastadt and Sevastopol, Theodorichshafen)?

The historical origin - meaning, do we know who invented them, how long they've been around, what they evolved from, etc.?

I've heard Tarot cards are frequently meant as a game, but have only seen them used for 'divination.'

I also was wondering - does 'divination' mean 'gathering insights gained without evidence' as in by magic; or is it more of a self-analyzing tool which illuminates for the self the human psyche underneath? Was there ever any attempt to do this therapeutic form of card-telling at a certain point before contemporary times?

It seems that Tarot cards are one of the major kinds that people use. But I've seen homemade divination cards, and "protection" cards that were meant to be similar. It's usually that the artwork on the card tells a 'story' of imagery which a person can then interpret and use for, like, divination. I'm wondering if non-European peoples had 'magical' or 'mystical' cards, and/or to what degree those were used. Also their relatedness to Tarot decks. Thanks!

So I have been watching a series of videos of English history, all the way to the start with Britannia and the Britons, to around 1600. What I am curious about from watching though is the lineage of English people, because I had always thought they were Anglo Saxon, but from watching the history, it seems once William became king it was primarily Norman from then on out. So was it that the royalty was Norman and the people were Saxon? Or was it just a mesh between the two?

Millions of soldiers hundreds of miles from home could not easily vote, and many civilians were trapped between opposing armies who frequently pillaged their lands and disrupted lines of communication. How did the US manage to hold a free and fair election during its largest, most costly war?

The setting is an Indigo plantation in New Orleans.

Louis says: "But in 1795 these slaves did not have the character which you have seen in film and novels of the South. They were not soft spoken, brown skinned people in drab rags who spoke an English dialect. They were Africans. And, they were Islanders; that is, some of them had come from Santo Domingo. They were very black and totally foreign; they spoke in their African tongues and they spoke the French patois; and when they sang, they sang African songs."

Is this an accurate depiction? I had always assumed that there was an effort to strip slaves of anything related to their heritage, including appearance and language and that dressing, speaking or singing in their native tongue was something that would have been unallowed.

Not in anyway shape or form trying to minimize the reality of slavery, just curious about what it actually may have looked like.

I just came across this claim and obviously this is something that sounds outright false. So why this question? After some digging I stumbeld upon a book called "Trading With the Enemy"

In this book it is claimed that the German war effort againsthe UK and the UssR as well as the Japanese war effort was only made possible in the first place by the US by trading 500 tons of Ethyl with them. However ... I do not quite trust them. The book has no sources (at least the online version of it that I found on a website that is littered with Red Stars...) and I do not find anything that confirms that this is true

Throughout the years of my hobbistic interest in the topic, I have noticed that many unexpected things are considered history by the scholars: starting from ancient jokes, toys and sex-toys, through the feelings or logic patterns of our ancestors up to the things such as sitcoms or websites popular in the past. I even saw some posts related to history of this subreddit, which got to me as a genuine surprise to me, at first.

This make me wonder, what exactly is needed for a topic to be considered historical and studied by scholars? Or even posted here, for that matter? Is it about the amount of time passed, the impact it had on the world or maybe something different at all?

I.E. bronze to iron age, horse and buggy to steam engine. Use of different materials, technologies that lended to a leap forward in progress, etc.

I know it is a daunting task to catalogue that in a single book, show, or documentary so if you know of a few good resources I could look at that would be great too!

Why go through the painstaking method of searching for merchant vessels and sinking them across a wide portion of the Atlantic Ocean, when they could have sabotaged and destroyed docks and shipyards which would have prevented merchant vessels from loading/unloading their cargo?
Why not pull a St. Nazaire-type raid across major docks in England?

Looking through a map it’s unusual to see most of Central America’s largest population centres being far inland. With the exception of Panama, from Mexico down to Columbia virtually all major cities are far inland and away from navigable waterways.

Wouldn’t being on the coast or near a large waterway have more easily facilitated population growth in this region? In North America it’s entirely based on waterways. While South America has some large inland centres Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru all have their major centres along the coast as well.