Ask

Title.

Title. In the modern day, with many examples of control / theocratic / dictator / military style regimes stubbornly holding onto power, I'd like to learn about any scenarios in the past where a regime willingly transferred power to the people. Hoping to understand what kind of offramps have actually been successful in the past.

When learning about ancient civilizations, Egyptian kings are commonly referred to as Pharaohs. However, we don't call Roman kings Rex, or Chinese emperors Huangdi, or Japanese emperors tenno. Why is Egypt an exception?

As the title states. I know that the revolution started in the UK and then spread to Germany, Belgium, France and the United States, but I know that by the 1800s other states in Italy were also industrializing. Given the long history of communication between the middle east and Europe, it seems like the Middle East could have begun industrializing as well, but never did and would eventually be colonized by the West. Was it scarcity of coal? Or was it reactionary powers opposed to change?

An ice cream place opened up near me that is 50s themed and it got me wondering why ice cream has such a connection with the aesthetic of the 1950s that other food items and desserts don’t have with other decades.

People always seem to look so different in paintings with such odd face and head shapes and sometimes very striking features. Did Humans look dramatically different a millennia or two ago or is it just a product of who was actually being painted?

It was mentioned in my history class the other day that we here in the United States use the Cantonese word "Kuomintang" rather than the Mandarin "Guomindang" to refer to the party. Additionally, Chiang Kai-shek is transliterated from the Cantonese, where a Mandarin transliteration would be something more akin to "Jiang Je-shuh" or something. Given Mandarin is the language used by the majority of Chinese people, why do we use Cantonese for these (and possibly more) words in the US? Is it specific to this era of Chinese history?

A couple notes:

• The teacher is Chinese and knows both Mandarin and Cantonese.

• I have no idea if this applies to any other countries, I'm interested to find out if it does.

Edit: It seems 'Kuomintang' is actually transliterated from Mandarin, while we use the Cantonese name for Chiang Kai-shek because it's the first one we heard. I think I probably misunderstood the notes in class. Thanks for all the deep and engaging answers!

It is with a surprised and saddened heart that I have to make a post calling out poor conduct by the mods today. Conduct quiet frankly that is shocking because the mods of this sub are usually top notch. This sub is held in high esteem due to a huge part because of the work of the mods. Which is greatly appreciated and encouraged.

However; mods are still only humans and make mistakes. Such as happened today. Which is fine and understandable. Modding this sub probably is a lot of work and they have their normal lives on top of it. However doubling down on mistakes is something that shouldn't be tolerated by the community of this sub. As the quality of the mods is what makes this sub what it is. If the mods of this sub are allowed to go downhill then that will be the deathkneel of this sub and the quality information that comes out of it. Which is why as a community we must hold them to the standards they have set and call them out when they have failed...such as today.

And their failure isn't in the initial post in question. That in the benefit of doubt is almost certainly a minor whoopsie from the mod not thinking very much about what they were doing before posting one of their boiler plate responses. That is very minor and very understandable.

What is not minor and not as understandable is their choice to double down and Streisand effect a minor whoopsie into something that now needs to be explicitly called out. It is also what is shocking about the behavior of the mods today as it was a real minor mix up that could have easily been solved.

Now with the context out of the way the post in question for those who did not partake in the sub earlier today is here:

The mod almost certainly in their busy day didn't stop and evaluate the question as they should. Saw it vaguely related to a type of question that comes up frequently in this sub and thus just copied and pasted one of their standard boiler plate bodies of text for such an occasion. However, mods are human and like all humans made a mistake. Which is no big deal.

The mod was rightfully thoroughly downvoted over 10 posts from different users hitting from many different angles just how wrong the mod was were posted. They were heavily upvoted. And as one might expect they are now deleted while the mod's post is still up. This is the fact that is shameful behavior from the mods and needs to be rightfully called out.

The mod's post is unquestionably off topic, does not engage with the question and thus per the mods own standards is to be removed. Not the posts calling this out.

As per the instructions of another mod on the grounds of "detracting from OPs question" this is a topic that should handled elsewhere. And thus this post. Which ironically only increases the streisand effect of the original whoopsy.

The mods of the sub set the tone of the sub and their actions radiate down through to the regular users so this is a very important topic despite starting from such a small human error. This sub is one of the most valuable resources on reddit with trust from its users as to the quality of the responses on it. Which is why often entire threads are nuked at the drop of a hat. The mod's post is one of those threads that is to be nuked yet is not. So this is a post calling on the mods to own up to their mistakes, admit their human and hold themselves accountable to the standards they themselves have set.

Or did literally everyone know what that song meant?

Obviously George Washington’s role in the founding and formation of the United States cannot be overstated, but naming not only the capital of the United States, but also an entire state on the other side of the country seems… maybe not lazy, but definitely overly confusing where oftentimes in conversation you need to specify “state” or “DC”.

Anyone have any insight as to why this is?

Which battlefield had the highest concentration of people over a given area? My first thought was Iwo Jima or Stalingrad but if anyone has a better answer I'd love to learn more

Hello! I’m , and I’ll be answering any questions you might have over the interwar period U.S. Army (Regular Army, National Guard, and Organized Reserve), such as daily life, training, equipment, organization, etc. I earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Nebraska Omaha in 2019 focusing on American and military history, and a master’s degree from the same university focusing on the same subjects in 2023. My primary area of expertise is all aspects of the U.S. Army in the first half of the twentieth century, with particular interest in World War II and the interwar period. I’ll be online generally from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. U.S. Central Time with a few breaks, but I’ll try to eventually get to all questions that are asked.

The HMS Dreadnaught gets heralded as revolutionary in popular memory, and the entire concept for the early 20th c. Battleship is basically called Dreadnaughts... but it seems like everyone was doing it. If the Japanese has more 12" guns available, or if the Americans weren't so lazy and slow... they might have been first to commission but calling the entire ship concept [South] Carolinas isn't as cool.

So were the British just quicker to do what it was clear to many nations was the obvious next step, or were other countries just very quickly catching onto what the British were pioneering, and able to shift their designs to be that close on the coat-tails?

I recently read about the American Indian Wars and saw that native peoples like the Comanche , Navajo, Apache ... put up a major fight and were a big military threat but people like Indigenous Siberians , Aboriginal Australians , Meso and South Americans , Africans ... you name it just got blizted through and weren't talked about or mentioned much . Is it because they weren't covered a lot or I am missing something ?

When watching documentaries, listening to podcasts, or reading books about communist regimes, one common thread seems to be miscalculations of potential agricultural yields, or inaccurate information on the food supply already harvested and processed. The craziest example of this to me is the Khmer Rouge expecting farmers to produce three tons of rice per hectare despite a historical norm of one ton of rice per hectare. Did communist leaders simply lack experience in agriculture, or did they selectively listen to sources of information that painted an excessively positive picture of their agricultural capacity?

Today:

Welcome to this week's instalment of ' Sunday Digest (formerly the Day of Reflection). Nobody can read all the questions and answers that are posted here, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.

Reading through my husband’s grandfather’s WWII “A Short Guide to Iraq” (War and Navy Department, Washington, DC) pamphlet issued to him when he served as a fighter pilot on an aircraft carrier. I’m wondering if the info issued was vetted or not or if someone may have some insight. The pamphlet mentions 2000 year old refineries in Iraq still in operation. Is this true? What were they “refining oil” for?

Not able to attach an image but text reads “If you happen to be sent to the oil fields, you will discover miracles of modern engineering construction side by side with primitive refineries built 2,000 years ago and still in operation.”

At what point did people look around and start saying something along the lines of...

"Welp. The Great War wasn't a one off. World War II is a thing."

Alcohol was universal among European and other seafaring crews for the simple reason grog doesn't go stagnant like plain water does. How did Muslim sailors get around this? Use alcohol anyway for practical reasons?

Despite how extensive and comprehensive the Maginot Line's coverage was (where it was fully built such as Alsace-Lorraine), the French seem not to have armed the Fort with guns heavier than 75mm.

This has always struck me as a bit strange. The French knew the Germans possessed Corp Guns up to 210mm and heavier guns than that were used by the Germans to knock out the Forts at Liege and Namur. I am wondering why the French saw no issue with keeping the Line's built-in Armaments so light. In theory the fire output of a "slice" of Fort was less than a regular Infantry Division. Was the expectation that Air Cover would neutralize the threat of German Heavy Artillery and Siege Guns or did the French expect the Army would loan the Line heavier guns? I have heard theories on both but seen little on either.

My impression is that in most wars through history, soldiers more or less had free rein to rob, abuse, or enslave enemy (or even their own?) civilians.

Is the idea that non-combatants should be protected from war really a recent phenomenon? Are there any historical records of societies before the 20th century that made efforts to stop their soldiers from harming people that we in modern times would consider "civilians"?

And a potential follow-up question: If it is a modern development, why only now? Surely post-WWII wasn't the first time for people to go "hmm, maybe killing people in war is wrong when it doesn't serve a military purpose", so did something change for that idea to be actually put into practice? Is it an economic/technological thing, where only modern societies have the resources to be able to enforce such strict behavior among their militaries?

As far as I know, the economic trajectories of both countries in this era were quite similar. Heavy industrialisation resulted in strong economic growth, but also displaced many people and negatively affected their livelihoods. Politically, both countries saw their share of upheavals, with France going through 7 different regimes and several wars, and Germany likewise seeing many wars and political changes (the country's unification being the big one).

Still, while millions of people left Germany in this period (primarily to the US but to other countries as well), no emigration on a comparable scope occurred in France. In fact, I believe France had net positive migration figures for most of this time, with many people moving in from Italy and Eastern Europe. Why did similar economic and political developments result in such vastly different migration patterns?

If there any music historians out there.

Was listening to Eminem’s ‘Without Me’ earlier and caught this lyric. This is not the first time I hear that Rap/Hip Hop or Rock and Roll back in the day was Black music. The idea does not shock me and by all accounts, rings as true as it can be. However, was there for Elvis and more recently for Eminem, an factual genuine ‘resentment’ type of feeling from black artists/audience that white artists claimed ‘their’ music and found fame and wealth from it?

I also saw an interview of 50 Cent during which he states ‘Hip Hop is black music. Unfortunately for some, it’s tough to accept that you got a white artist that does it better than a black artist’. In that sentence alone, he essentially confirms the implication of Eminem’s lyric.