Reading on Konrad Adenauer's Wikipedia profile, that he was the target of an Irgun attack, orchestrated by Menachem Begin. Why did some Israelis oppose the Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany?

I want to buy publications called: Fornovo 1495 and Tudor knight, are they any good? do they have good info in them?

When semi auto pistol design began in the early 1900s we obviously saw a lot of crazy designs. And up to WWII that continued. A lot of nations went with stuff like the TT-33 for the USSR, M1903 and M1911 for the US, etc etc. But then a lot of countries went with non-rectangular shapes. The Luger and Nambu are the best examples of a different general frame. Yet now, nearly all pistols is that regular rectangle body look. Why? And when did this become the standard?

There’s always been a point about the armenian genocide, and turkey’s denial of it, that I have not properly understood. And that point is that the turkish republic actually tried and charged and sentenced to death many of those responsible for the massacres.

If Turkey held trials for war crimes, and found war criminals guilty, why does it deny that the genocide has occurred? Why does the world still seek “judgement” for these crimes?

In short, why is the armenian genocide and its denial still relevant, and a big controversial topic, if it has already been “settled,” so to speak, in turkish courts, around a century ago?

We are well aware of history in the form of prose. But have historians ever written history in the form of poetry? Any outstanding examples?

Vasco Da Gama the famed Portuguese sailor found out the route to India and South East Asia from Europe. But after his lifetime the Portuguese lost its hold in the region. What was its reasons?

How effective were Native American allies in wars in North America (US and Canada) between European or European-heritage countries? Such as wars between the French and British, Spanish and Americans, British and Americans, etc. Did they have a decisive impact on any major battles?

This is something that I still find it hard to swallow.

Every time a communist government, or some a communist-fueled revolution was made, it was made with a lot of passion in mind - Lenin was very passionate in his beliefs against the Tsar, Che Guevara against the Cuban government, Mao to reshape China entirely.

It is as though every communist in their heart were very keen and zealous about their desire to overthrow capitalism, sometimes with an iron fist, almost similar to that of a zeallous fascist in the 1930s and 1940s.

And for this, there was a lot of fear and discrimination against communists - the Shanghai Massacre, the Red Terror, the Red Scare, the Reichstag fire.

For 40 years during the Cold War, it was as though every communist was unbelievably confident in their goal to implement a communist government in every country, possibly as passionate as the colour red as it is defined as the colour of communism.

And yet, with every attempt to implement a communist government, there were major political and economic problems - economic stagnancy, famine, poverty, corruption, political censorship and even use of political force and assault.

Why was this the case? How come the attempt to implement a communist government was often done with a passionate attempt, sometimes with attempts that end up in conflict or violent debates, ended up with a dictatorship that ironically had all the power and also made the nations very stagnant politically and economically?

From Douglas Haig in the Somme, to Churchill in the Dardanelles, to Falkenhyne at Verdun, one sees instance after instance of men being sent senselessly to their deaths for almost no value for any side.

Some of these, such as the Somme, have had their death toll squarely aimed at incompetence among the generals.

Did any of these generals, publicly or privately, during or after the war, ever express any genuine remorse over these deaths?

What about the civilian atrocities that occurred during the war, from the rape of Belgium to the Armenian genocide?

If there were any public statements of remorse, how were these received by the public immediately and after?

Hey, so thanksgiving is coming up and i've been wondering with the massacre really happened and when i searched on the internet some said yes and others no.

Hello, first time poster that would like to know which books are more suited for the purpose of research for a a project I'm currently developing.

It'll primarily be set around 1355-1359 in Portugal and about the Order of Christ established a few decades before this date.

I would like to you if any of you know which authors/books I should read on this very particular timeline and branch of the Knight's Templar or anythjng about the order in particular that is of high quality.

I'm beginning my studies with a book called "The Knight's Templar" by Helen Jane Nicholson, do any of you know if its worth the read? Or would you recommend another starting point?

Any other forms of media are also welcome, television, movies, comics, etc. I want to fully dive into this subject and learn as many historical details as possible.

Appreciate the help in advance.

🤦‍♂️ I meant to say *Qing.

I learned in school that the whole point of the Revolution in Russia, was because the country has gone pretty much broke because of World War II, there was no money so soldiers were basically being sent to die with no hopes of return.

Then I learned that when the USSR was put in place and in the years following, peasants and farmers were all living miserably, and many famines occurred.

I’m really confused and I don’t understand how exactly did the USSR suddenly become a superpower? Where did they find the money to provide free healthcare, housing, jobs to everyone when they didn’t have any money? How did they manage to compete with the U.S afterwards?

"Knightly orders" meaning organisations such as the Knights Templar, not modern orders of knighthood.

For specificity's sake, let's say in Europe from the Medieval period up until the 19th & early 20th century. For the most part, at least to my understanding, women during this time were not allowed to become priests, serve in the military, own property independent of their husbands, vote, or attend universities, among other things. In general, society also held largely misogynistic attitudes towards women. So why were women still allowed to become the monarch, especially back when monarchies still held considerable power over the country?

I know this sounds mainly like a linguistic question but I'd imagine that official document surviving from that time and chroniclers would give us direct or indirect answer.

Did a firsthand source, say, mention offhand that Charlemagne spoke to a Saxons count directly in one instance, and mention he needed a translator to talk to a Moorish embassy in another, with the implication being that Charlemagne didn't need a translator to talk to a Saxon?

Did everybody just speak Latin to each other?

Do we know the names or locations of any large or important settlements? If so, which ones? How big were they, and how were they organized?

The only places I've managed to come across so far are Hedeby and Ribe (Denmark), and Kaupang (Norway). However, I've seen some people argue that these weren't actual towns, but served primarily as marketplaces since most of the population didn't even live there.

I'm mostly looking for settlements founded before these countries were Christianized, but really anything will do. Thanks.

To clarify; I mean chattel slaves buying their freedom.

Giving that fact that Rome saw non-roman people as barbarians , how that applied to Carthage Empire? (that during the Punic War was bigger than Rome territories and had a professional navy) Did Rome gave them a "special" nomination/ treatment ? or they just called them Barbarians too? If possible ,i would like sources .Thats a big question in my head .

I can't seem to find anything online that helps me understand each side's perspective. I've heard here and there that the colonists did not truly want this war, so can someone help elaborate?

Were a lot of his choices seemingly conventionally wise but ended up failing? Did no one in his cabinet have any idea what they were doing? Were there some who were “fine” but not getting enough done?

Always been curious about this.

Ive seen it called fascist before but Ive also heard that it had its own unique but similarly authoritarian right wing ideology. So I was curious if fascist is the best description. I know fascism is a kinda nebulous idea so I don’t know if it fits here or not. From my understanding the ideology of that era of japan developed mostly independent of the European fascist movement. Plenty of their actions seem similar to the fascist of Europe such as their treatment of the Chinese as often subhuman. But I’m not familiar enough with Japanese history and ideology to say if it was fascist or not. Any books/sites/videos on this would be cool if you know any. Thanks