did they all close down and go gone?
did they keep open and just let the allies occupy the embassies?
did the ambassadors become german or where the allies in charge of appointing the new ambassador?

did power just break down to the allied embessies?

I’m playing AC Valhalla and just noticed at least one of the pigs in my village is all inked up, I know these games strive for historical accuracy with some stuff but couldn’t find anything about it online

As in the owner of the white slave being white as well. If so, were they surrendered enemy soldiers or prisoners? And did they get to have more privileges than black slaves? Thanks fellow historians :)

Out of shear curiosity this is a question I have had for a long time. It's one conspiracy theory that I am not able to shake off convincingly and I would like to have someone with more knowledge than me explain the facts to help me discern what is true and why some things were done.

Did Hitler ask for his and his wife's body to be burnt? Why? I would assume it would be because he wouldn't want allies to take vengeance on his corpse so to speak.

Did he shoot himself and take the pill? Did he give the pill to his wife and shoot himself? Did he shoot her and take the pill?

Is there a consensus on this information?

​

Thank you in advance for the time

I am a bit confused why this flight in particular earns the title of the first flight. What makes an aeroplane flying considered flight but not a hot air balloon controlled flight which had been around for 100 years already. Or a dirigible/blimp controlled flights that came ten years before. I understand that gliders don't have a power source so they are disqualified but wouldn't the heating source on a balloon and the generators on a blimp make them considered artifical human flight? Why do the right brothers get credit when the other inventions came first.

This doesn't even take into consideration the argument that the first flight took place years earlier in an airplane in Brazil but I understand this point has a lot of controversy about its authenticity.

So I’m making an original character that is Viking I only the simple stuff like where they originally come from, and they were raiders from what I read. But I wanna make sure that’s accurate, so are there any good sources?

I was rather surprised when reading about the Troubles recently; in finding out that more British soldiers actually died than paramilitaries.

From the war of terrorism and similar operations I am used to see different numbers where insurgents often has vastly higher losses.

Why the difference? Where counter-insurgency much less developed during the 80's? Where the British forces much more restrained than for a comparison Israel and US? Had the IRA above average training and equipment?

Comparing with the seemingly similar Basque conflict also lacks this disparity with roughly similar losses on both sides - so how did the Troubles end up killing more than 5x of British forces?

Everywhere I look for these stones I can only find crackpot conspiracy theorists that think it’s an ancient spaceship. Is there any real reading I can do on this subject?

I’ve been sat here scrolling through posts for the last 2 hours just shaking my head and dropping my jaw... honestly some of the write ups here are phenomenal, and I totally mean that! You guys are really really smart and it’s so flipping cool to see that!

This is going off on a tangent but I was reading something earlier in a post about how they let the dough sour a bit before rising it, thus making it a ‘SourDough’.. like how does one even say ‘hey, let’s leave it to sour a little and see what it’s like?’ Things like that blow my mind to be quite honest, especially for that day and age. I’m one of those people who was really naive and thought that we only started living nice in the 1900’s.. let alone learning about random guys like ‘Casimir III the great’ who was the king of Poland in 1333..

Now you might say what does he have to do with anything? For me.. it’s just mindblowing that there was a guy who was a King in 1333 who probably thought he had the world at his feet and was living during great times, just like we did up until 2020. It’s intriguing to see people being able to talk at such length about these people’s lives, nearly 1000 years after their deaths! I mean nobody else might be talking about Casimir III, but even in 2020 he’s not forgotten. They’ll look back at us in 3033 and probably gasp in amazement as we do to our ancestors.

That’s the beauty of history I guess.

I was eating popcorn tonight and thinking about how old popcorn is and found myself wondering how old the concept of buttered popcorn is. I've found sources online about popcorn in Pre-columbian America and sources about milk in Pre-columbian America, but nothing about butter specifically.

Is it possible that in Pre-columbian America, people not only were enjoying popcorn, but specifically buttered popcorn?

The figure of the celebrity romance novelist seems unusually common in 80s movies (e.g., Romancing the Stone or Troop Beverly Hills), and even some 80s fiction uses the idea, like Elizabeth Peters’s Jacqueline Kirby novels. Writers love writing about writers, but this seems very distinctive. Was this a real phenomenon?Did the genre experience a spike in popularity? If so, why?

Basically, how far back could you go and still be able to tell a home cook that they needed a cup of something for a dish, and they would know what you meant by it, and would also be able to easily measure it out?

So I know that after the civil war the southern states were mainly democratic, and that as the democrats moved towards civil rights republicans started to brute force all the black representatives out of the party to appeal more to the southern population. I also know that before Roosevelt republicans were in favour of a bigger influence of the federal government, and that democrats started supporting it too to get the votes of the West. With Roosevelt, the republicans who always represented big businesses started opposing centralisation.

What I don't understand is how the two things fit with each other: is the South made of mainly big businesses? From what I knew it was mainly agrarian landlords, what am I missing?

I originally had this question after seeing the end of Jojo Rabbit where most of the surviving Nazis including children in hitler youth uniforms were rounded up to be shot (it's implied they are in the American control zone). But I've also seen this in other WW2 potrayals notably in Band of Brothers after the D-Day invasion it's strongly hinted that a number of prisoners including an ex American are executed off screen.

I've been watching the WW2 in real time series and have zero question this sort of thing was pretty regular on the Eastern Front. But honestly I always thought that simply wasn't something the Americans and British did except in really anomalous circumstances. Was it actually, if not common, at least not that unusual for the western Allies to conduct mass executions after a battle?

I saw a post here maybe a week ago asking why Norse mythology is considered a myth and not a real religion, but I didn’t read much of it. It got me thinking as to why the Norse religion essentially went extinct and became myth and why Christianity was more appealing to the Vikings.

Its easy enough to find information on U.S. and U.K. conscription, its deferment and exemptions. But if I were a young man in Nazi Germany, what would my options be for avoiding service? Could it be deferred for education? If I had a particular trade skill would I be specially assigned or deferred? I'm sure it changed as time went on. What sort of medical conditions would disqualify me and how did that change over time?

Thanks!

I remember in high school here in the U.S I didn’t learn a damn thing about South America, and it’s not like they didn’t have as much history, so what gives?

Is this true for both men and women? If they did, would they usually marry close to their age or would they generally marry younger people (especially men vis-à-vis women of childbearing age)? Would marriage alliances that could not result in children due to the ages of one or both of the spouses hold the same weight as those that at least theoretically could?

Venezuela has become a common talking point in political arguments, but surely you can’t pinpoint the economic crash due to “socialism” when Cuba is surviving under sanctions and Bolivia prospering (until the coup). What happened in Venezuela?

It seems odd to me that it is usually placed separately in discussions about genocides, even though many millions of Africans died directly as a result of the inhuman brutality of the practice, and even many more millions suffered agonizingly for generations and generations over the numerous centuries the trade flourished.

I had the thought that perhaps it’s cast differently because it lacks a central aggressor (it was executed by vast networks of countries and treaties as “commerce,” including African leaders themselves), but I have no real basis for that thought other than a hunch.

What’s the real story?

I was always taught that he was simply a demagogue who claimed to have some level of knowledge or inside information regarding undercover communists/sympathisers but in reality he didn't. Is this the case, and if so then how were the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss caught?

I won't ask about The Beatles, but I remember from reading lists made by rock magazines and websites (such as Rolling Stone or 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die) and being in forums back in the day that more or less the same bands were always considered the best: Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Who, The Doors were some which always stood out. Among the three "godfathers of heavy metal", as I recall them being called, Led Zeppelin tended to be placed above Deep Purple and Black Sabbath and Pink Floyd, while not being 100% part of the prog rock scene, teneded to be above King Crimson, Yes, Genesis and ELP.

I realise that the fact that the baby boomer generation grew up with these bands is perhaps a reason why they tend to be higher than newer bands (even big ones such as U2, Nirvana or Radiohead), but how does such a consensus get reached? Is it popularity, influence, innovation?

I also realise that it is possible this perception I have has shifted in the last 10 years or so, which is when I stopped participating in rock forums, and also me being from Argentina has also perhaps skewed my understandment.

In most western nations, the color blue is oftentimes used as the friendly or allied portion of war planning and military operations, while red is used as the enemy or opposing force.

I’m wondering if it’s the same case in nations like Soviet Russia, where red is such a predominant color used in all forms of their media and character, going so far as to make red the main color of themselves on maps, their media characters, and almost all facets of life. Does this mean that Russia used red for “friendly forces” and blue for enemies in military strategy? Or is it the same as it was here?