Often we are told that the SPD and KPD were the two left wing parties of Weimar Germany and that the KPD was the other radical party when compared to the NSDAP, so why didn’t these groups attempt any action against the nazis immediately after being elected? I understand there was a fierce rivalry I just can’t really wrap my head around how they didn’t set their differences aside

The definition of checkmate is to put the enemy king in check such that he can't escape, block the checking piece, or capture it. Even though the game finishes there, it is assumed that the next move would be the capture of the king. With stalemate, the game ends in a draw if the opponent has no legal moves (with any piece), and the king is not in check. But of course, we can imagine an exception to the rule where the king ventures in enemy territory and is then captured, to end the game. Is there a historical precedent for the existence of this rule, was it always like this? I know that chess has evolved over the years and some alterations have been made for the original Shatranz...

Other interesting historical facts about chess are welcome!

Supposedly written in ~300BC, the Epicurean Paradox claims God cannot be all powerful and all loving if evil exists.

But from my understanding, classical Greek religion held that the Gods were not only self serving and morally flawed, but also not all powerful and often had things happen to them out of their control.

Jewish thought may have supported the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent god, were they who Epicurus would have been talking to?

Title explains it pretty much. I haven't read a single book on Third Reich (or any other history book). Will it be difficult to understand, or is there any other book I should check out?

When we read about military archery, generally we only learn about archers firing mass volleys in the general direction of an enemy army. Are there any examples from any culture of specialized military archery units tasked with taking precise aim at specific targets at long range? I've heard plenty of stories of individual archers accomplishing such feats under various circumstances, but I'm not aware of any purpose-built precision archery forces from history. It's possible to reliably strike human sized targets at 100 yards or more with primitive archery tackle, surely this would have come in handy from time to time, such as when a high ranking enemy came within range or a politician needed defending during a public appearance, etc.

There is a common trope that Germany was transformed from a very poor state after WW1 because of the Treaty of Versailles, to a vibrant empire when the Nazi Party came into power.

Although, I am not sure if this portrayal is accurate.

At the same time, while Nazi Germany was growing in its influence, with its use of propaganda, and change in laws that limits certain freedoms (especially towards the Jews) and conditioned its citizens to obey the laws and ideals of Nazism to the letter, there are images of Nazi Germany still being vibrant and almost like a very functional nation before the second World War and not as a dystopian power as one would imagine as a dystopian nation would be like.

How come Nazi Germany was able to strive or even thrive economically before the war and how come it was still able to sustain itself economically during the war?

Where was it getting all its resources and trade since some countries prohibited trading with Germany during the war?

It is quite ironic that Nazi Germany, a culture that we know that was built on ultra-nationalism and racism, and fascist bureaucracy that probably made anyone feel afraid if they said anything wrong against Hitler and the Nazi Party, especially if that person was a Jew, and yet, when we see images of Nazi Germany (especially before the war), we see a nation that was quite ... well, functional, almost prosperous even which is strange to me

I am wondering if we have any idea or any artifacts that show how Ancient Chinese people used to dress in the Han, Song, Tang and etc Dynasties.

My curiosity stems from the fact that under Mao Zedong's cultural revolution a lot of Ancient Chinese artifacts were destroyed. There are a few things that come up online.

But lately, I have seen discourse from other Eastern Asian Communities that none of the clothing presented online is truly what the Chinese wore back then as it was all destroyed under Mao Zedong. Anything that says so, is propaganda by the Chinese Government.

That is why I am doing research on this right now. I want to get an accurate view of what Ancient Chinese used to wear and to see whether or not what is shown online is truly ancient Chinese clothing.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I've also posted this question in r/history, as I am uncertain whether or not this question fits here.

Ever since both World Wars, there has been a change in general attitudes towards the military and war. There was less glorification and romanticisation of war, especially since WW1 after being exposed the sheer destructive power of the technology of the 20th Century, and less romanticism towards the attitude of might, perseverance, and the will to take up arms if necessary such as although Nazi Germany glorified war and military might, the people around them were not as keen especially when they were informed about the Hitler Youth (especially their efforts to fight in the later stages of the war), and even Hitler's attempts to do a political coup in his early years.

​

Then, after WW2, and especially in the mid of the Cold War, the attitude towards warfare has started to change - the United Nations was formed with the attempt to omit the change of another world war and the formation of authoritarian rule, and there were the anti-war movements of the 60s and 70s, especially after being informed of the horrifying images and information that were done by the Americans during the Vietnam War.

​

As a result, the glorification of war and even nationalistic attitudes started to change in Europe but in America, it is a bit different.

The attitude towards patriotism, the romanticism of the collective might of the people during the American Revolution, and the attitude of the world's defender - these attitudes in America persisted even though America was involved in both World Wars and also was the main contender of the Cold War.

So how come, even though Europe and America are allies and even though they both had an influence on both World Wars and even the Cold War, how come their general cultural attitudes towards warfare started to differ as time progressed in the 20th Century?

Are they actually related by blood or did the 2nd Hojo Clan simply take the name because it was prestigious ?

The poor condition of these places shows that the government usually doesn’t care about the well being of the prisoners, so why didn’t they simply execute the prisoners? Wouldn’t that be more cost efficient?

In 1997 the 99 year lease on the better part of HK expired, but instead of returning it to a western capitalist ally the Brits gave it to the communists, why?

I know someone born after could, but I'm curious if such a thing is possible. People that age could certainly be fit to run, look at Joe Biden, or Trump. They're both about that age.

I'm just curious as to whether or not someone born before that date could run.

There were many more modern planes in service back then, such as the Spitfire and the Bristol Bow Fighter, that may have been more appropriate. I just can't see why they would use such outdated equipment to sink such a modern battleship.

I've recently finished reading biographies of both King Henry VIII and King Edward VI, but in neither of these books is anything related to colonialism mentioned, despite both of these men ruling decades after the Spanish had discovered and started settling/conquering the New World. Granted, England had quite a bit of political instability during these years (basically the fifty years between the reigns of Henry VII and Elizabeth I were quite unstable), but the same was true of Spain in this era - Charles V's reign certainly wasn't unchallenged, and at the same time that he oversaw the conquest of the New World he was fighting the French, the Ottomans and German Protestants. So what explains the seemingly complete disinterest in colonial affairs that the monarchs of England had before Elizabeth I's reign, which started over sixty years after Columbus's discoveries? Are there any primary sources from this era that could shed light on this topic?

There are linguistic reasons and folkloric reasons for making this connection. It seems there was an island in the Aegean from which the Etruscans certainly originated, and it's not unreasonable that this is the island to which the Trojan refugees fled.

When I say Troy, this is how I understand the Trojan War.

1. Anatolia was dominated by the Hittite Empire, which was hegemon over cities and tribes in Western Antalolia.
2. Troy was an important city-state expanding its influence in the North.
3. The Southwest of Anatolia featured the Achaean tribes.
4. The Hittites contracted/compelled the Achaeans to defeat Troy in light of its rising power. This was the Trojan war.
5. The Trojan refugees fled to nearby Lemnos, becoming known as the Tyrrhenians.
6. These eventually migrated to Etruria.
7. There seems to be a link between the afterman of the Trojan War (which was more of a war to sustain Hittite hegemony) and the beginning of the attacks which led to the Bronze Age Collapse.
8. The Achaeans migrated to Mycenea (leading to its collapse) following the conflict.
9. Rome appopriated Etruria's folklore, claiming Trojan descent itself.

​

This seems almost uncontroversial, though perhaps not completely proven.

With all the nonsense theories about Atlantis and other historical, mythological and religious speculation that has occured, I'm surprised that there's not a more assertive movement among either historians or speculators that Etruria is the legacy of Troy. It seems both cultures had a religious fascination with the idea of fate.

Is there merit to this idea?

Not how did they preserve it, like with smoking and drying, but how did they keep it from animals? I’ve been camping enough to know that bears and chipmunks will find a way to get into any food supply that isn’t inside a modern invention (concrete bear box, bear proof containers, etc). How did they keep their food safe without modern bear proof technology?

I've always gotten conflicting answers on Lincoln's views on slavery so I just a want a clarification. Some say his goal was just to preserve the Union and some said he thought hated it as it was morally unjust.

So at school in Northern Ireland I've learnt Irish republican history. Figures such as Eamon De Valera and Michael Collins were emphasised and their legacy was stated. But the founder of Sinn Fein and a figure which seems to me to be just as significant as them if not even more so was seemingly ignored by my teacher. After cursory reading it seems like he was generally airbrushed from history in favour of those other more 'notable' figures. I would like to ask, why was he side-lined? What made Eamon De Valera, Michael Collins or other Irish republican figures more significant in history than Arthur Griffith?

By this I mean weapons such as Brown Bess muskets and pistols.

The game shows it in the 9th century as being fairly small (smaller than Jorvik), primarily Roman ruins, governed by a Danish ealdorman and with a large Danish population. If this is accurate, how did it come to be? I understand the coastal invasions of East Anglia and the more inland Danish conquests into Mercia, but how did London come to be that way if so? Thanks.