In discussions about submarine warfare in WWI and WWII it's often said that early in the war the British commanders were very worried that German submarines would significantly impact the overseas supply coming to Britain and bring Britain to her knees, and that the German should have focused more resources into their submarine fleet rather than their surface fleet.

Given what we know now, with perhaps access to the German archives, is such assessment accurate?

If the Germans did redirect resources to their submarine fleet, How likely would the German submarine fleet break through the countermeasures developed by the allies such as escorted convoys?

At their most successful, how much supply shortage and/or price spike in goods did the German submarines actually cause? Could Germany even have produced enough submarines to sink enough ships to significantly impact the supplies to the British Isles?

He starts declaring himself the second son of God in 1843, then by 1851 he has a huge army and is waging the bloodiest civil war in history against the Qing dynasty. How did the sect get so powerful in less than a decade? Why did so many people in China start devotedly following a dropout calling himself Jesus’s brother in such a short period of time?

Why did the bolt-action rifle continue to be the primary infantry rifle in most industrialized societies after World War One? With the notable exception of the United States no military had made semi-automatic rifles standard issue by 1939.

I am aware that the Germans and the Soviets mass produced semi-auto rifles but the overwhelming majority of rifle-caliber guns produced by these nations was still the bolt action rifle by far. I can understand why countries like Italy and Japan would not adopt a semi-auto as their industry did not have the capacity to do such a thing. But a country like Germany of all places not having their own version of the m1 garand is just asinine in my opinion.

I would like to preemptively address one of the talking points I often see when interwar semi automatic rifles are discussed: the argument that the Germans centered their doctrine around the then revolutionary belt-fed light/medium machinegun, and therefore did not see the need for semi-auto rifles. My response to this argument is this: why wouldn't/couldn't the Germans just have both? In the 1960s, not too long after the war, the United States had BOTH a main infantry weapon that fired faster than a bolt-action (M16) AND a supplementary belt-fed infantry support LMG (the M60). (and yes I am aware that the m16 fires an intermediate cartridge but my point still stands).

Why are cats often depicted as the bearers of bad luck and ill omens? Is there a spiritual/religious reason why felines are viewed as untrustworthy? Thank you!

Given that the Norman descended English rulers have taken names such as Edward, and British monarchs have even named themselves after England's patron saint, how come there's never been another Alfred? Is it just a coincidence or have the English/British had a conscious reason for choosing Alfred as a regnal name?

Watching John Adams on HBO Max and it's pretty good although am curious why Maine and Vermont weren't included as part of the original 13 colonies. On the flag the marchers held through Boston to protest "join or die" all of New England is included as one part of the snake without differentiating the New England states.

Were Maine and Vermont not included because they at that point were more part of France or Canada?

So post WW2 we gave the Japanese a new constitution with democracy, free speech, and universal suffrage. How did they feel about this? Are these political philosophies uniquely Western or did the Japanese have previous experience with democratic governance and free speech? I know that if a foreign government rewrote our constitution with ideals from their culture's political philosophies I would not like that.

After Japan had had a healthy democracy for 50 years (1995, before the 20 year subreddit limit) did they come to view all Enlightment ideals as a package? Are they extremely proud of their individual liberties like Americans are or are they sort of ambivalent about them?

In 1186, Baldwin V of Jeruselem died. His mother, Sibylla, and her husband, Guy of Lusignan were crowned. Many nobles opposed the pair and instead supported Sibylla's half-sister, Isabella, and her husband, Humphrey of Toron.

Among the supporters of Guy and Sibylla was Raynald of Chattilon, Guy's brother (Aimery of Lusignan), Sybilla's uncle (Joscelin III of Edessa), and Sybilla's mother (Agnes of Courtenay).

Yet one of the nobles opposing Guy and Sybilla was Agnes's husband, Reginald of Sidon.

Why didn't Reginald support his step-daughter and her husband? Wouldn't it have been in his interests to put a relative on the throne?

The veto is an extremely powerful tool on the UNSC. Since the UN was still relatively new, did the Soviet Union not realize at the time how powerful it actually was?

While reading about the Tudors I read a line about Catherine of Aragon mending shirts for her husband (King Henry the Eighth) and the idea of the queen mending shirts ran smack into lots of uninformed assumptions in need of correction.

I'd assumed that, in the stereotypical image of noblewomen in a sewing circle, they weren't doing anything useful or practical, but rather just doing something to keep their hands busy, like modern people who do embroidery as a hobby.

I'd read that noblewomen were trained to be decorative adornments to a court, and perform perhaps an important social role, but absolutely not do anything considered "work". So I definitely thought that mending would be done by servants, like the laundry, and not by the queen. Even if it is the king's mending.

So, when the queen and her ladies in waiting are sitting and sewing, what are they working on?

Asking this since they give conflicting accounts in regards to the events that happened during the 4th Crusade. I lean towards Villehardouin since his position as a marshal should give him a more credible perspective compared to de Clari's position as a knight participating in the Crusade. What is the consensus on the matter?

I'm looking for articles which go into this topic. The understandment I have is that their aggressiveness has been greatly exaggerated (correct me if I'm wrong). Any general information you think may help me understand better the question Is sincerely welcomed. I have almost zero knowledge of fashion history so if you can, try to explain even the simple and widely known concepts.

Currently there are about 4600 metric tons of gold at Fort Knox, according to Wikipedia. What is the history behind those bars of gold? How much of it was dug up in the California Gold Rush? Is there gold there that has been in circulation for thousands of years, in one form or another? What was the US process for acquiring the gold for its reserve?

A recent answer about the history of secularism and Islam mentioned in passing that prewar Afghanistan was quite secular with “relatively high gender equity.” While I realize mid-20th century Kabul was more liberal than it is now, what was life like in terms of religion and women’s rights in pre-war rural Afghanistan?

Apologies if this is a wrong pre-conception - but I have heard of this... is it true? If so, why did Japan drop a “more advanced” weaponry such as the gun in favor of older ones like swords and katanas?

Hello, what happened with the gold that during the spanish civil war the republicans shipped to Russia? Was any of it given back?

I am curious as to whether Thomas Jefferson's owning of slaves was challenged by his contemporaries such as Benjamin Franklin.

Or was his owning slaves a private affair uncovered by historians?

I'm reading a book by Ian Mortimer at the moment about the Middle Ages, and he put forth an interesting idea: That people (specifically in England at the time, he doesn't speak to other places) didn't have a real concept of the development/evolution of cultures in a great historical sense. The illustration he gives for this is the fact that the figures in church wall paintings and other art at the time were, regardless of their actual period of being, depicted in contemporary garments/styles of Middle Ages England.

On the surface this makes sense, but also seems like too sweeping a conjecture to me -- is it? What was the sense of historical cultural development (in anything from fashion to philosophy) like in the Middle Ages, among the various groups in society?

Today in the popular imagination the caravans on the silk road are usually depicted consist of long lines of camels stretching from horizon to horizon, each animal carrying as much cargo as possible.
How true is this image? How much cargo was carried by the average caravan?
How many standard freight container (TEUs) would be needed to fit the stuff of a single silk road caravan?