he U.S public system definitely gave me a U.S-centered perspective on history after WWI (like womens strikes/music/fashion/inventions) and that really bothers me I'm wondering what anyone knows about different countries after WWI and what sort of stuff about their civilizations changed/evolved.

Hope this makes sense! Thanks!

During the 60's, South America witnessed anti-comunists right-wings coups who would lead to socialist and communist persecutions. Did the USSR try to intervene in those governments? How the USSR reacted to South American coups during the Cold War? I've searched but couln't find anything about how the USSR reacted to Latin American coups.

Edit: grammar mistakes and more information on the question.

Can anybody suggest related sources about Frederick III , Maximilian I and Charles V's relations with the Papacy and also their attitudes toward religious events, uprisings and so on. Here is my essay question ' Was secular power on the rise between 1452-1556? '

As the whole operation was supposed to be secret, how did the minesweepers manage to clear enough sea room to enable the invasion fleet to land?

I’ve heard that this was largely a financially motivated accusation/ lie leveraged by the monarch Phillip IV who used Pope Clement V as a mouthpiece bearing religious authority. However, elsewhere I’ve also heard that inscriptions of Aphrodite were made by the Knights Templar and that Baphomet was thought to be a misrendering of prophet Muhammad of Islam and that whilst they hadn’t converted to paganism that they’d adopted or converted with Islamic thought which would still be held to be blasphemous by the Church at the time. So, I ask, what is the historical case that they actually did adopt esoteric, occult or non-Christian theology?

As we all know or at least as people such as myself who are interested in military history of the first and second world wars during World War II there was a certain operation held which resulted in a almost total debacle of the conflict on the part of the allies.

Operation market garden was the brainchild of Sir Bernard Montgomery of Great Britain. As we know Field marshal Montgomery was riding high on various successes throughout the war. Probably his most notable being his victory over Erwin Rommel in north Africa. Obviously he wanted to undergo something to help shorten the war.

Now in this case I understand his motive thinking. Wanting to shorten the conflict makes absolute sense. It saves time, money but most of all it saves lives. If he could’ve shortened the war chances are he could’ve saved millions of lives on both sides of the conflict. Yet as history has shown Operation market garden was an absolute an unmitigated disaster. Why was this? Why did so many other large scale operations like overlord, husky and so many others succeed where market garden failed?

Also because of this failureWhy wasn’t Montgomery removed from command? Because of the failure and the loss of thousands of allied lives you would think that he would’ve been removed from his command and placed somewhere else. The Americans did this to General George Patton for a short time following an incident in Italy. So why was this not done with Montgomery?

Obviously this is not exclusive to the West and other cultures during the same periods were likely intolerant as well. However, it seems like every time the subject of homosexuality in non-Western cultures gets brought up, be it in Native Americans, Middle Eastern sultanates, African tribal customs, or even Southeast Asian kingdoms, those societies are far more tolerant, or at least nuanced, in their treatment of men having sex with other men, only for those customs and traditions to be forcibly removed upon contact with the West.

Am I completely off here or was the Western world really much more intolerant toward homosexual behaviors than their contemporaries elsewhere? Is there a particular reason or reasons why they were so much less tolerant?

I've noticed (by watching anime) that it is easy for me to pronounce Japanese words, so I assume there was some effort to standardize the language. When/how did this happen? Or am I completely off base?

I recently read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, which tells how scribal errors played a major role in shaping what we currently understand as the Bible. But a lot of the arguments given there seem like they should apply to any ancient text that was copied by hand many times over. This has lead to me thinking about other texts -- do we have the same accumulation of scribal errors in other ancient texts, and the same business of textual criticism trying to understand the "original" for other works, or is the Bible somehow special because of the number of copies made, or the level of academic focus on it?

I'm also curious if there is a difference in the role played by scribal error in different parts of the world. Does this propagation of errors affect our current understanding of, say, the Chinese classics? Is there an equivalent of the study of textual criticism for oral traditions, where one studies errors made in oral transmission of texts to try to reconstruct the original?

Hi, I have a tough topic to ask about today. My mother has been going down a deep rabbit hole of fascism and anti-semitism for a few years, and is too far gone to have a reasonable debate with. Today she said that the Jews have been at war with "us" for 3000 years, and that they are responsible for the fall of Rome. I understand that this is completely absurd, but I am not knowledgeable of anything past Julius Caesar, which is my favourite period to study. Furthermore, I have only a modest understanding of the basic history of the middle east.

I'm sorry if this is a sensitive subject for you guys, but I just want someone with a deep understanding of Roman Judea to give an explanation of the relationship between the Romans and the judeic peoples, and if that region played any influential role in the wider Roman empire.

Thanks.

I was just thinking about this in the shower, and have a lot of questions that weren't immediately obvious from a quick google:

• Did the defendants have legal representation in the first place?

• If so, were their lawyers public defenders or privately retained?

• In either case, were the lawyers Nazi sympathizers, anti-Nazi activists, or just regular lawyers doing their jobs?

• Were any of the lawyers Jewish, or otherwise members of demographics that had been victimized by Germany?

• Did the defendants share a lawyer / legal team, or did everyone have their own separate representation?

• If any of the lawyers were public defenders, which country or countries did they hail from? Were they provided directly by their home countries' governments, or via some international body?

• How competent was the legal representation? Were they genuinely advocating on their clients' behalf in good faith to the fullest extent of the law? Would a modern-day lawyer (with relevant background on the historical context and contemporary international law) watching the trials walk away with a positive opinion of them?

Would people from say, the Inca empire or ancient Babylon recognise and enjoy the soundtracks associated with them in the game? And how would one go about answering these types of questions?

This facet of the French revolution always fascinated me, thank you in advance for your replies.

Back in his time, there wasn't such country as India, so what destination did he had in mind while reaching the New World?

Before pictures or videos couldn't anybody just say they were someone else if they went somewhere where nobody knew either person? And was it common?

It is a chilly thought that people sympathised with Germany and these people were in the thousands. Some were civilians, others were soldiers.

Even some people who were not German or a part of Nazi Germany were sympathisers or collaborators with Nazi Germany like Argentina or Philippe Pertain.

I know that antisemitism had existed and was socially accepted at the time but it is a chilling thought that people were devoted to the extremist idea that Jews and other social groups like the communists or the Romani were the enemy and they were persecuted and hunted down by the thousands.

So what were the factors that made so many people so convinced that they thought that their actions were justified and wanted to remain devoted to Nazi Germany without questioning these supposed ideals?

First off I want to preface this by saying that by no means do I think homophobia is gone or that it’s accepted everywhere in the West. Go back a little over a decade and being openly homophobic was totally acceptable. We also couldn’t even get married.

However we have made a lot of progress in recent years. Is this the farthest we’ve gotten? Was there any other point in history when a culture was so open to the idea of homosexuality that one could identify as gay and be in a relationship without fear of reprisal? Or even go so far as to start a family, through adoption obviously, without sparking outrage?

I know different cultures and time periods had varying views and it wasn’t always vilified. But I’m not sure if I can see people getting to the level of acceptance we have now.

I'm not familiar with any other modern military that isn't either a commonwealth force or a successor force like the South Africans or Rhodesians who wore shorts. Even other forces in the same regions like the Germans/Italians in Africa or the Japanese in the Pacific (they might have used them scarcely I think, maybe). So what was the thinking there and why didn't it catch on before or after?