I've seen this claim on a number of "useless fact" websites but I cant seem to find the original source for it, so Im coming here to settle it. Is this true?

Heres some clues from what i can tell.

• no sri lanka still called Ceylon
• still called Ussr
• no taiwan
• no north/ south Korea just korea but there’s a border
• rhodesia and shouthern rhodesia
• bechuanaland
• east pakistan?

Why didn't they use their aircrafts or aircrafts of occupied countries to deliver supplies to the Soviet Union? Their trains and trucks were having a hard time travelling due to the winter and muddy roads of the Soviet Union. Is it because they needed the Luftwaffe for the invasion that they didn't have enough aircrafts for supplying the front lines? Please answer thanks :))

For a short version of my question - why wasn't there significant separatist sentiment among French Canadians outside of Quebec, particularly in Ontario? Despite French language and culture being neglected to an even greater degree in English-speaking Canada, there doesn't seem to have been an equivalent separatist/terrorist movement among French speakers outside Quebec. Is my view of this correct, and if so, why was this the case?

For a longer version of my question - though I'm American, my mother comes from a French-Canadian family in northern Ontario (Timmins and Sudbury, specifically). The town she grew up in had a very large French-speaking community, and my grandfather was very active in various societies and groups that promoted French language and culture. Despite all of that, my mother said that there wasn't any separatist sentiment among the French population of her area, and viewed the Quebecois separatist movement as distinct. She also believes that this feeling was mutual - she went to university in Quebec at around the height of the student separatist movements, and recalled that despite being French-Canadian and speaking primarily French, she was often mocked by other students as "l'anglais" (the englishman") because she was from Ontario

It's a common thing to hear these days, about how horrible everyone is on the internet and that no one is nice to each other. Did people have these attitudes at the turn of the millenium? Or is this a more recent phenomenon due to social media (out of the scope of the sub I realise) ?

Confucianism, Buddhism, Shinto - all of them encourage the submission of self for a greater whole, with the ultimate goal of buddhism being the entire loss of individuality and self.

Contrasted with abrahamic faiths where the self is preserved past death, and one's identity remains intact forever - whether as punishment or reward.

Edit: Sorry about the spelling errors, times should be read as types

It is normal to see a standard response such as this to a comment which needed to be removed:

Sorry, but we have removed your response, as we expect answers in this subreddit to be in-depth and comprehensive, and to demonstrate a familiarity with the current, academic understanding of the topic at hand. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the rules, as well as our expectations for an answer such as featured on Twitter or in the Sunday Digest.

I don't think the mods need to apologise, nor should they. It kind of implies that you have done something wrong, which might even result in more angry, aggressive responses.

I know you are only being polite - and thank you for that! - but there are other ways to be polite without apologising for doing your jobs.

Maybe something like:

Thank you for wanting to participate in AskHistorians! However, we have removed your response as we expect...

Just a thought.

Now that the armenian genocide is resurging in popularity, I want to ask a question I’ve always wondered: what’s the significance of the 1919-20 istanbul trials in which the perpetrators of the armenian genocide were found guilty of crimes against humanity in turkish martial court, and sentenced to execution?

How can Turkey deny that a genocide has occurred, if they have tried the people responsible?

In short, what’s the significance of those trials, what do they mean for turkey, for armenians, and for the international community at large? I never see them mentioned anywhere, neither in Turkish or international circles.

(My last question got deleted, and I can’t click on it to see why in notifications, so i’m re-asking)

Edit: the more i read from wiki, the more this has increased in complexity, and the more i am struggling to connect the dots.

How are the trials connected to the sevre treaty and the partition of the ottoman empire?

How come turkey denies genocide, when it has tried the perpetrators of genocide with crimes against humanity, and had them executed?

I mean they committed rape, beastiality, incest, and a fearful amount more. Yet people worshipped them? Why would the priests create stories that would scare people of the gods they worshipped?

In other words, was rape not regarded as a "big deal" during those times? Or, was it just a normal thing for women to be enslaved and used specifically for sexual purposes as a form of punishment?

Is there a way to determine the likelihood for a woman to be sexually assaulted in Ancient Greece or Rome and compare that to the present-day numbers?

I have always wondered about this. If it wasn't a secret, did Hitler ever try to explain what he was doing to foreign powers?

Do we have sources about his political beliefs outside the personal record provided by his wife? It seems suspicious that a wealthy rural Christian patriarch in that time and place would be opposed to the Nazis or fascism more generally.

I often read how Julius Caesar commited genocide against the Gauls during the Gallic Wars, usually citing Plutarch's figure of one million killed and one million enslaved. Even Caesar's own book describes numerous massacres and mass enslavement taking place.

But AFAIK ancient writers in general were prone to exaggeration when it came to these kind of numbers, and I'm wondering if there are any archaeological evidence for this. I'd imagine if there were such a sudden and massive depopulation in the region, it would leave some trace in archaeological evidence, like sudden termination of inhabited settlements, smaller number of burials and changes in settlement patterns. So my question is, what does archaeology say about the depopulation of Gaul after Caesar's conquest?

Title basically. With all the discussion lately around fossil fuels, micro plastics etc it makes me wonder how we used to view harmful things such as lead. Was it discovered to cause issues early and hidden, such as with fossil fuels causing climate change, or cigarettes causing heart disease/lung cancer? Or was it swiftly banned with little pushback from either the public or private sectors? Was there denial about the dangers of lead before it was banned? Etc

From what I understand it was a powerhouse of Europe, but eventually was wiped off the map for centuries. What happened? How? Why?