I get what you mean, but the best solution I always see, if you just enjoy coming here and reading interesting stuff - is to ask the more interesting questions! People will be always up for reading about the more popular stuff and artificially trying to curb that would probably not result in much good. But there is wealth of knowledge in here that goes often untapped and many people would love to share it, so we can give them the opportunity by being curious bastards. It also (hopefully) provides an outlet for new potential flairs that don't have their topic come up often (and if you feel like that, shoot me a PM!)

Now back to Hitler.

Simply put, while the idea has of course been discussed, we have no interest in placing moratoriums on certain topics in this subreddit.

Yes, there are consistent topics that we see, but if they are getting asked, and more importantly, upvoted, it is because people continue to be interested in them. I can assure you that as mods, we see more repetitiveness than anyone else, and probably get more frustrated by it at times than anyone else too, but it just isn't the right direction.

What I will say though, to anyone who gets annoyed seeing the 5th Hitler question atop the sub in a month... you can help make a difference? Not simply by asking your own unique and interesting questions, of course, but check out the New queue, and upvote the unique and interesting questions asked by others. Even a few upvotes early on can make a huge difference in the success of a post, afterall.

While I agree there are many questions and some repetition on popular topics such as Ancient Rome and WW2, the sub seems to handle this well. I have seen instances where a helpful poster responds to a repeated question and links an earlier answer relevant to the same/similar question.

Another reason to not engage a moratorium on particular topics is that history is an evolving field. Every so often, a new batch of declassified documents hits, old archives formerly inaccessible to historians are opened up to research, or new evidence is unearthed that changes the way historians understand a particular topic. Occasionally, a dutiful scholar will even find a new and credible interpretation of an existing source that provides fresh insights into a relatively settled topic.

So today's answer could be reexamined in the light of information we don't yet have. It can be enhanced, altered, and occasionally turned on it's head if the right evidence exists.

Lastly, several people can read the same page, and interpret it differently. So a moratorium on popular topics may rob the sub of valuable perspective and diversity of opinion.

I've not found repetition to be a bother, though I can see how some would.

I come here daily and I don't really feel there is a terrible deluge of these topics. I might have blinders because I enjoy posts about Rome, but I think the questions that tend to percolate up are interesting.

The questions I do get annoyed by are the ones that show very little attempt at self research, ones that could be answered by a very cursory google search or reading the first paragraph of a wiki page. These questions often come from the more prominent topics (like Rome and WW2) but also others.