Who was the first Roman Emperor to openly accept the position and project his authority in title, etc. and do away w the pretext of Roman Republicanism?

Diocletian. His reforms after the Crisis of the Third Century did away entirely with the pretense of Republicanism.

[deleted]

Has anyone else ever heard the claim that Chang Kai-shek sold American weapons to some Japanese? This is reported in a William Donovan biography as one of the first few things discovered when the OSS sent someone to China.

When and why did African Americans make the switch from mostly voting Republican to mostly voting Democrat?

What are some good books about Rome during Late Antiquity? And also early Medieval Italy.

What are y’all’s favorite eras to learn about?

Do you think that if France had just defended the Ardennes more that they could have successfully defended against hitlers invasion in ww2?

Perpetual prayers. It was a thing for European Catholic rulers/nobles/rich people to leave money to specific monastries/convents/churches on their death for "perpetual prayers" for their soul. I assume anyone who did this in my own country (UK- England specifically) no longer gets them since the reformation but in parts of Europe that remain Catholic do they still pray for someone who died centuries ago? If not when did this stop?

How a historical figure is viewed by posterity often really depends on who you're asking.

Genghis Khan, whom you specifically mention, has often been viewed positively by Mongols, Turks, and Western Europeans, yet the Han Chinese view of him is more mixed and he's often viewed as a utter villain by Central and Eastern Europeans, Indo-Iranians, and Arabs.

For another example, Tamerlane is a hero to Central Asian Turks, yet Arabs, Indo-Iranians, and Georgians tend to remember him as a one of the blackest of villains.

For a more recent example, the way the French and Corsicans view Napoleon are both different from how the rest of Europe tends to view him.

In regards to how this applies to how posterity will view Hitler, it's hard to say. Nazi Germany's conquests might look extensive on paper, yet they lasted no more than twelve years, which was not enough to fundamentally alter the established cultures and customs with German culture and customs. This situation is quite different w.r.t. to the conquests of Roman emperors, Genghis Khan, or Alexander the Great, which did fundamentally alter both cultures and customs.

[deleted]

It was during the 1960s, the Republican party employed the "Southern strategy" of appealing to the pro-segregationist Democrats of the American South as the Democratic party started to support the Civil Rights movement.

Part of the reason for the Democratic party supporting the Civil Rights movement was Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. The hypocrisy of the US treatment of its African American citizens was a popular subject in Soviet propaganda.

I heard another theory that also seems to hold validity. A prior major shift was during the 1930's. Poor and working class folks (a lot of them African Americans) moved to the Democrat party during the New Deal policies which appealed to lower-income individuals.

The High and Late Middle Ages and the 19th and early 20th centuries in general

Perpetual prayers for the dead and masses for the dead were meant to lessen people's time in purgatory. Most Protestant sects rejected the belief in purgatory, so they also did away with masses and perpetual prayer for the dead.

Both officially remain part of Catholic doctrine and requesting a mass for a dead loved one is as simple as calling up a local parish to request one, setting a date, and paying a small fee, it's just not practiced nearly as much as it was in the past.

This happened over a long period of time that really started after 1915. You had the big boll weevil infestation in the south and Black sharecroppers, people tired of the constant violence and intimidation, economic refugees, etc strated to immigrate to northern cities. The GOP in the northern cities was a lot like the financial wing of the GOP today, with a concentration on small business owners, big corps, low tax policy. B/c of that they didn't really have any institutional infrastructure to integrate Black voters into their political machinery. But the Dems, even though being still racist, did know how to organize the laboring class. So you start to get this uncomfortable alliance of both groups saying, we don't really trust each other, but if you help us, we'll help you. A famous example of the uneasiness of the relationship is Chicago, where the Black voters supported Daley even knowing he had participated in the race riot of 1919 during the Red Summer.

There were set backs to this relationship, Wilson's presidency was an example. The party leadership had to balance the conservative racism of the southern wing of the party, the labor jealousy and racism of the northern party, and the needs of big city political machines in the north.

But during FDR's presidency the Black voting community became more important and FDR was forced to grant more benefits, like guarantees of jobs for Black people in war department jobs. But he still maintained segregation in the military and federal government, and imposed segregation on federal military contractors in housing, to placate southern democrats.

As Black Americans in the south saw the help their northern kind were getting, they started to align the alternative political structures they had with the national Dem party. And they got more results, like Truman's integration of the military.

By the end of Truman's term a combination of the contradiction of fighting the Nazis for freedom while maintaining Jim Crow, the political use Communists made of Jim Crow, and the valor of Black servicemen in Korea made it pretty clear that Jim Crow was immoral. If the north was forced to face the issue they would usually do the right thing. So, the Supreme Court, even the Eisenhower justices, started to swing towards the new norm.

JFK had campaigned with civil rights as part of his platform. As civil rights activists started their bussing campaign, violence broke out across the south. This was all captured on Television and broadcast the south's brutal and savage racism to televisions across the north. This forced Kennedy to move closer and closer to the civil rights movement. He was not particularly good at it and it was awkward with lots of missteps, but that's the direction he was pulled in (Tom Ricks has a new book, Waging The Good War, out that should be easy to find that gets into how the Kennedy brothers were used to leading and very uncomfortable not being in control of the movement. JFK didn't have time to learn and adjust but RFK did. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/oct/08/thomas-e-ricks-civil-rights-january-6-waging-a-good-war-book-military-history)

During LBJ's term, the need for the civil rights act was pretty obvious. The civil rights activists used a couple new strategies. One was having white college volunteers come down to the south to work with them and the other was to involve children (high school aged) in their activism. While a lot of Americans could look away as Black people were brutalized, it was impossible for them to ignore attacks on children and young white Americans. LBJ was able to get several civil rights bills passed.

And that's when the break gets dramatic. There were still prominent Black republicans like Jackie Robinson who wanted to work with the party. But Barry Goldwater sensed an opportunity. He started claiming that segregation was a "states' rights" issue. He refused to condemn groups like the Ku Klux Klan that showed up at his rallies. He moved GOP primaries (illegally) into segregated venues to keep out Black Republicans, and opposed the civil rights laws and court decisions ending segregation. He turned the GOP convention into a near race riot that drove out even the most dedicated Black Republicans.

Goldwater failed, the violence and barbarism was too much for people. The Alabama murder of 4 little girls at church was too much for people who considered themselves civilized and Christian to tolerate and Goldwater failed to respond. The parties really changed at that point. Southern Dems switched, they had already started leaving the party with the Dixiecrats, but now went over to the GOP. Nixon formalized it into the Southern Strategy and the election of Reagan and his dog whistles made it clear to Black voters where the GOP stood. The GOP was able to gain influence among white working classes in the North and the west by playing into this racism too. A lot of Nixon's support and the organizing for the future GOP came from California housewives in places like Orange county that were worried about integrating schools in S. California which had seen a big increase of Black people who moved to California for the war industry jobs. The best book on covering the whole topic I know of is Joshua Farrington's Black Republicans and the Transformation of the GOP. You can hear an interview with him on The New Books Network.

https://newbooksnetwork.com/joshua-d-farrington-black-republicans-and-the-transformation-of-the-gop-u-pennsylvania-press-2016

A couple good books on how the GOP picked up northern working class White people by playing to racial anxieties is Nick Buccola's The Fire Is Upon Us about William F. Buckley and James Baldwin. Buckley's campaign for mayor of NYC. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/books/review/the-fire-is-upon-us-nicholas-buccola.html

and Ralph James's Northern Protest about MLK's failed Chicago campaign. It's out of print but still relatively easy to get from a library or through ILL. Rick's book touches a little on it and ties it together with the failed campaign in XX.

Michelle Nickerson's book, The Mothers of Conservatism, is a good book on the political organizing women did for the GOP in places like Orange County. You can hear an interview with her on The New Books Network: https://newbooksnetwork.com/michelle-nickerson-mothers-of-conservatism-women-and-the-postwar-right-princeton-up-2012

What was the average monthly salary in 1938 Austria (more specifically Vienna) after the Anschluss?

If I recall correctly, the Democrats had to limit the benefits of the New Deal that went to African Americans to retain the support of the southern Democrats.

I like the US from about 1850 to 1940. There was just a huge sea change in the understanding of the Constitution, economic institutions, and development in the country. It's a fascinating period to learn about. A lot of the conflicts from that time are still driving politics to this day. Right now we're basically in a reversal of Constitutional understanding back to a Lochner era reading where civil rights aren't important but economic rights of the elites are paramount. This is basically con law from 1939 to 1870 in reverse.

This stuff is complicated, but you can already see a rehabilitation of Stalin's image. The economic hardship in post Soviet Russia, the incompetence of the government, propaganda about the predations of the west all have contributed to his image among people who are dissatisfied with Russia's current condition. I imagine as Russian society breaks down more we'll see a stronger move to beautify Stalin.

For Hitler it probably won't happen b/c his legacy is such a failure. Stalin died on his own terms, not cowering in a bunker as his society was utterly destroyed by his own bad advice. There were no forced migrations of millions of Stalin supporters into Georgia or some kind of equivalent like post war Germany had. The benefits of Hitler's corruption weren't widespread enough or long lasting enough to create any kind of constituency to try and call back "the good old days." Most of the people who would make that up are obvious misfits and usually pretty embarrassing. Hitler's rule was just too closely tied to devastation to really have any other legacy. He didn't industrialize Germany. He bankrupted the economy in about 6 years and then on top of all his other atrocities basically destroyed Germany.

This is a very under discussed era of the US, 100% agree. I’m still not super familiar with the era, but much if the little that I do know was pretty mind blowing and changed the way I looked at the US fundamentally

What I'm mostly curious about is if a King of say France in the 1200s sent an abbey some gold ducats (or whatever they used in france in the 1200s) for "perpetual prayers" doesn't that mean prayers forever? So would the abbey still be doing it today (assuming it still existed) or does it stop at some point? The nature of time means many of these abbeys may have been destroyed, especially in part of europe that turned protestant and obviously they will have stopped praying for people who died centuries ago but if the abbey still exists do they still do it? Or at some point does whoever is in charge stop caring about a guy that died centuries ago and stop?

It seems like a lot of discourse nowadays revolves around grouping people by their generation and remarking on them. Is this a new phenomenon or is their evidence that people have been doing this throughout history?

Doubtful: the effective air superiority of the Germans destroyed practically all of the french heavy artillery, and made moving reinforcements by train difficult. The French army also didn't have the training and AT guns it desperately needed due to earlier cost cutting (only 20% of the French tanks even had radios,) and the end result was that the French army was too demoralized to attack even when the German tanks were too far ahead of their infantry, which was the only time France might have been able to reverse the situation, at least for a time.

Are there any historians that still argue for "Great man theory"?

Out of all rulers commonly known by "The Great" epithet, who is the greatest "The Great"?

I bet there is. There are probably historians, even if it's a small minority, that believe in all sorts of strange theories.

Easily classical Rome or the high middle ages

This is an oddly specific question, maybe look through public records and documents.

This is a subjective question, as there are many people known as the great. You can look more into them if you want, and I found this list of many people. Some of the more famous ones were Alexander, Ashoka, Constantine, and Ramses II.

These are good and varied collection of texts that you'd find on any decent university level course and are accessible to the layman:

• The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750 by Peter Brown
• The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation by Bryan Ward-Perkins
• The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather
• Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 by Guy Halsall

Really anything on the /r/AskHistorians book list for late antiquity is good, modern reading (although Jones is something to only skim unless you're studying it in earnest).

Why is the English (or British) civil war rarely talked about outside of history circles? It is one of the most important parts of history but most are barely aware of it, if it all. In contrast, the Tudor era for example is in the global conscience a lot more but no more important IMO

I heard from somewhere that in medieval art they depicted soldiers as wolves, because "war turns good men into wolves", probably having to do with trauma or something similar. Any idea if this is true or not?

The English civil war is bad optics for a monarchy. The people killed the king, they would much prefer to talk about the birth of the English state (the Tudors) or the birth of modern British politics (the Glorious Revolution). When institutions want to hide under the rug a whole era it's difficult to get people excited about this. And at this point it's so far away that you would need to change the whole popular view of English history to put it at the forefront... and let's be honest not many people care about 17th century history.

But people to care about 16th century, they even care about 1066, so it’s not as simple as that. Fair points though. Personally think it it’s a shame as it’s the most important part of English history IMO

It's so outdated that it would be hard to pass a viva if you did. So unless they somehow completely avoided it in their PhD thesis only to then come out with it afterwards, probably not. Then of course peer-review, getting work at a university, etc. Someone still following such old concepts wouldn't be a popular candidate.

We still see it a lot in amateur historian works though, in fact it's still very popular there. But I can't think of any recent works published by actual historians that maintain this -- though I can only go off of what I've come across in my own research which hasn't been looking for such a thing.

Not entirely sure what you mean, do you mean like calling people "gen X" "Millennials" or speaking of generations in general? Or "kids these days" type stuff?

Here’s the thing. People do not really care about the 16th century. They just are familiar and enjoy the Elizabethan esthetic and Shakespeare.

And do people really care about 1066? Or has school drilled into them the idea that it’s an Important Date that Should Be Remembered? Do they know actually what William or Henry Tudor did or do they just know the names because “it’s important”.

[deleted]

Is there a precedent for a state which was taken over from within by criminals in a democratic way? There are all sorts of dictatorships, but usually those took over by a coup. The question refers to a nation where a gang, gangs, or an assortment of criminals, took over by exploiting democracy and employing populism slowing over years to convince everyone they should vote for them, e.g. by cutting deals with the media, finding ways to use institutions for their criminal activity like laundering money, etc.

I have on mind an example but want to hear your thoughts first.

There are next-to-no academic historians who do.

Certainly, they might say that a historical figure has a major effect on history, but the idea that, say, the French Revolution or World War II would have just not happened if Robespierre or Hitler had been stillborn is seriously devalued these days.

Suffice to say, that the causes of the French Revolution and World War II both went beyond the simple will of one man.

World War One specifically but the late 19th Century to the early 20th century more broadly. I'm not German but from 1871 when Germany became one country to either the end of Weimar Germany in 1933 or the beginning of the Second World War in 1939 are good markers of the period I mean.

There is just a lot going on in terms of colonialism, technological growth, ideologies, the international politics before WWI and the consequences of the war. A lot of class based stuff as well. In the UK there was all kinds of reform going on, the Labour party becoming important and other countries catching up with the British Empire economically.

Well it's giving distinct names to each of our generations and then apportioning general characteristics to them or blame for things they do/have done.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. It made me think of something, of why the dems and republicans essentially swapped voter bases over time (or why this general dynamic in any given scenario would take place). In the beginning, Republicans had the black vote and the northern vote predominantly. Dems had a lock on the south. It's only natural to eventually want to expand your constituency and absorb those voters who traditionally haven't supported you. Thus, Dems finding ways to appeal more to blacks and northern whites, and Republicans finding ways to appeal more to southern whites. All while probably trying to retain their original voter base. And there you have a general framework of why, over time, 2 political parties can essentially swap places on the policies they support and the constituencies that support them.

There's little evidence of anyone talking about generations (in the sense of societal generations) before the 19th century.

Despite that, there is plenty of evidence of people complaining about Kids These Days, even though they didn't call them, for instance, Boomers, Millennials, or Gen Z.

Usually it is paid in the anniversary of the death or birthday of the dead one.

So, in a sense both parties disappointed their original bases and we're moving into the opposite base with shiny new promises.

I never heard about it. Supposedly it happened during the Chinese civil war / invasion of Japan? During the WW2? Or after?

I believe it was between 1939-1942. This claim was also paired with they found Chinese and Japanese officers who were working together to bloodlessly take and retake cities to look good for their commanding officers. The book is the William Donovan Biography by Richard Dunlop.

​

It also has the claim in it that Szmul Zygielbojm specifically killed himself because FDR refused to bomb Auschwitz after Szmul gave proof to Arthur Goldberg, who gave it to William Donovan, who showed it to FDR, FDR refused to redirect planes, this gets back to Szmul, and he kills himself in protest. No mention of any of this or even a connection between the people involved on Wikipedia.

How did Germany, Berlin and, Korea become divided and why were they symbols of the Cold War?

Southern Dems did a lot of stuff to restrict the vote, not just to Black voters. They opposed the 19th Amendment pretty universally, even though Dems in western states were some of its strongest supporters. They also had really restrictive voter laws. The Virginia constitution of 1902 probably restricted the vote to about 20% of Virginia's population.

B/c of the senate and house districting, sometimes it makes sense not to grow your voting base in the US, but to concentrate on restricting votes that you can't control. You can modern equivalents of it now in some states.

The FDR thing is fairly well known. The recent Ken Burns doc on US policy and the Holocaust is worth watching on this. But during the war FDR faced a choice of putting resources to ending the war or hoping that bombing would have some impact on the holocaust. But there wasn't really any evidence that bombing camps would make a difference. There were thousands of camps and they could just moved populations around and repurpose other camps, or they could go back to the strategies of earlier in the war and just machine gun them down. FDR realized the only realistic option was to defeat the Nazis.

If there are, they're kind of going to be fringe historians or popular historians, probably older. The big reason why this doesn't really exist in the field anymore is that historians, through their work, have shown that the world is just too complex for any one person to control history in the sort of way that used to be attributed to people like Barbarossa or Charlemagne. Marxist theories of history have done a lot to show how the vagaries of things like geology can lead to bread riots in France right as the king's finances get exposed that are beyond the control of any individual. And for any individual's actions there are countless other's doing their own actions, sometimes in support, sometimes in opposition, sometimes in totally different spaces or overlapping spaces without concern of other's actions. History is just too complex.

Besides the great man type history, you also don't really see works like Gibbons' The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The kind of history where you develop a grand theory to explain everything is just out fashion and recognized as too unrealistic of a pursuit. Now an academic might try and write a book that covered a topic over a length of time, like maybe US history for some period, or German colonialism in Africa, but it usually won't get more general than that b/c they have enough knowledge to realize the flaws and errors that get introduced when you have generalize more than that.

Some popular historians still write these books, but they're usually used to justify some kind of political goal or worldview and aren't really taken seriously b/c they reason backwards from a conclusion rather than forming a theory from evidence and arguing in support of a theory. They're the kind of books pundits might "write" and promote. They go through a print run and are pretty much never referred to again.

It was about 100 schillings for a 48 hour work week. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41831403

There were about 10 schillings to the US dollar according to the article.

No, because German historians aren't lionising him. There are precious few 'scholars' trying to rehabilitate Hitler, and they're not German.

cf. Andrew Roberts and Napoleon.

...because they were divided by the Cold War? The USSR occupied East Germany and created the DDR, and a section of Berlin (which was located within the DDR). Korea was divided between the USSR and USA and the two sections of the country were encouraged to develop in different ways by the occupying nations.

Sounds like a homework question, so going to try and help but also lead you a bit towards the answer.

So both were divided due to warfare and resolution. Germany and Berlin as a result of the Second World War and Korea as a result of the Korean War.

The Cold War was the period which started immediately after the Second World War and lasted until the 1990s (to put a convenient end date, though you could put it earlier, or much much later to not at all).

The Cold War saw world powers vying for control, and for influence over other nations. These groups tended to unify -- either through actual agreements or just simply convenance -- and to keep it simple we refer to the two sides as First World and Second World.

The First World were the US, and NATO allies. The Second World were the Soviets, China, and their allies. There is also the "Third World" which refers to those unaligned with either side.

See this map for First World in blue, Second world in Red. Look at where Germany is split: how could this create tensions? Look at Korea, how could this create tensions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World#/media/File:Cold_War_alliances_mid-1975.svg

Define criminals/gangs, etc.

I think that's going to be crucial for your argument. What do you consider criminals/gangs? A lot of political parties would fit very well within a lot of definitions for that, but if you're thinking more Bloods and Crips then perhaps not.

But the factions involved in fifth century Athens and the use of ostracism to make the people feel like they were deciding when it was just "gangs" controlling the demos for their own benefit certainly disrupted power and put influential groups into seats of power (i.e. Themistocles, Pericles). And then there's other issues like just influencing the population through accusations, witch-hunting, and turmoil (e.g. the profanation of the Eleusinian Mysteries, the destruction of the Herms), which allowed for political arrests and trials with the public support.

Southern Italy and Sicily after the dissolution of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies is pretty close. The Sicilian Mafia, Neapolitan Camorra, and Calabrian 'Ndrangheta existed before 1860, but they came into their own in a big way after that point. Yet, even so, they never quite replaced government, nor fully managed to make themselves part of it.

Even closer to what you describe, though, would be Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think that's largely a modern phenomenon that we can thank technology for. Before modern communication technology, cultures were, by and large, very regional. But as technology began to allow wider communication, subcultures began to develop. You really saw it with pop culture, as people of similar ages would be listening to the same music, or watching the same TV shows or movies, things like that.

For example, without recording and broadcast technology, Beatlemania would have been impossible.

A lot of the "generational traits" that we see among different cohorts depend on shared culture. And modern communication is what makes that possible.

I saw this essay today and thought you might find it interesting: https://fivebooks.com/best-books/world-war-i-jonathan-boff/

There's a book that came out last year called Devil Land. The author has some other books on Charles II and the English civil too. This book made a few best of lists I saw and I kind of filed it away in my "Maybe check it out if you see it on the remainder table or at the library" list. But it might be something you'd find interesting.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56567211-devil-land

How did wagon trains get to the USA west coast without roads? I can see getting across the prairies and deserts, but the mountains and forests and rivers are not so easy. But nobody is said to have built roads or passages that facilitated that passage. Is it really that easy to take a horse drawn wagon across such lands?

This is a little flippant, but actually does have some historical truth to it. Korea got divided up b/c National Geographic had published a map that folded in half along the 38th parallel.https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-2-colonels-national-geographic-map-divided-korea-24734

They cleared passages called trails. The Oregon Trail is arguably the most famous of these.

Thank You!

Maybe the closest would be N. Korea. Russia isn't really an example for anything.

I was unfamiliar with the Italian example but it's a lot less interesting to discuss a undeveloped 19th cen. state.

Thomas Jefferson argued that every generation (which he decided was 19 years) should get their own constitution.

We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

Source

Not quite what you were asking since he's not really assigning characteristics to each generation, but it's interesting that he wanted a legal system based on the idea.

This was in a letter to James Madison. I don't have time to find Madison's reply rn but from what I remember it was something along the lines of "You're a fucking idiot, never try to talk about this to me again."

Do you agree with the observation every fascistic regime is really an alliance between the titans of industry and the financial elite and politicians they support? If so, how does it explain the traction it has among the lower classes?

Thank you, it was interesting. I've added one of the books (The Last Great War) to my WWI to-read list.

How (in)accurate is Graham Hancock’s documentary series Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix? Are archeologists really how he says they are?

Well there's a complete lack of evidence for his claims, the fact he thinks it's Atlantis or an Atlantis analogue, which we know to be a fictional creation, the fact he's never done any actual archaeology, and the fact that we have lots of evidence of civilisations around the same time as his supposed ancient advanced civilisation, but they just lived side by side, and one left loads of evidence, and the one he supposes existed didn't leave any evidence at all.

Archeologists are constantly digging, making new finds, and publishing their results. You can find them on the internet. They're not hiding anything because their jobs count on them finding and publishing. No archeologist is hiding evidence of ancient advanced civilisations because they don't 'believe' in it, whereas Hancock believes it must be true, so they must be hiding evidence and of course the only reason he is criticised is because he's right and they don't want to be proved wrong.

Zero understanding of science and history.

Graham has been a laughing stock for decades now, not a single academic considers him to be even noteworthy. He had an audience of conspiracy theorists, and now, unfortunately, conspiracy theorists are more organized and you can make more money off of them so he's having a bit of a career resurgence. It also helps that his son runs a department at Netflix, which also explains why he's been giving a show despite possessing nothing that qualifies him to be an expert on any such topic that he's presenting. I wouldn't even trust Hancock if he told you were the nearest petrol station was. The man has nothing of value to add to academia.

Why did the US and most of the world institute a One China policy? Given that the west/east had no qualms about recognizing 2 German governments (East and West), and 2 Korean governments (South and North), what was the thinking/philosophy of recognizing only 1 Chinese government? Couldn’t they have just recognized both the Nationalists and the Maoists either once the Nationalists fled to Formosa/Taiwan, or in the early 70s when they switched over to the communists couldn’t they have just also added the communists instead of having them replace the nationalists?

Conversely, why did these countries become divided, but China and Taiwan did not?

It wasn’t really the rest of the world that started the One China Policy.

China demanded the OCP. Basically told the rest of the world there can be no diplomatic relations with any country that doesn’t accept China’s claim that Taiwan isn’t separate.

>Do you agree with the observation every fascistic regime is really an alliance between the titans of industry and the financial elite and politicians they support?

It depends on what you mean by 'alliance'. I don't think Nazi Germany, for instance, was really allies with German industrialists and financiers; certain industrialists and financiers were Nazis, but most of them just went with the prevailing wind, and the Nazis continued to allow them to exist as long as their business served the state.

>If so, how does it explain the traction it has among the lower classes?

Typically because a fascist regime will project the importance of the lower classes (in Nazi terms, the 'Volk'), and will often promise to address their problems ('full employment'), but this doesn't mean they necessarily gain a lot of traction with the lower classes, nor that they do anything about lower class problems, or if they do, that they then won't add a new raft of problems. The Nazis were never that popular among the working class. Nazism was a solidly middle class movement.

[removed]

And there are still places where you can see it, wheel ruts and all.

What languages should a military historian know?

That's going to depend on what area you're looking at.

Ancient Egypt: German, French, and depending on the period the necessary ancient languages.

Ancient Greece: German, Ancient Greek, and a decent understanding of Latin

Rome: German, Ancient Greek, Latin.

Others you might not need anything other than English.

Both the Republic of China (KMT) and the People's Republic of China (CCP) claimed to be the one legitimate government of China after 1949. So recognizing both wasn't possible. I know Taiwanese independence is a hot-button issue for the PRC, they said they'll go to war if that happens so that's basically off the table.

I also don't think North Korea was given diplomatic recognition by the US, if memory serves the US to this day handles it's affairs with North Korea through the Swiss, they have no embassy in Pyongyang. That might also have been the case for East Germany.

[removed]

When/why did we stop giving leaders nicknames?

Meaning, the "Alexander the Great", "Ivan the Terrible", "Christian the Tyrant" etc

Any chance of ever seeing it again?
Will we ever see "Putin the Bloody" or something?

It's much easier to tell people apart with search engines and even library cataloguing systems. These names tend not to come during the lifetime of the person, but usually long after, and often from different places. "They had that king Karl, which Karl? The one that was a tyrant." "Ah, right" "Alexander did" "Which Alexander?" "Phillip's son" "that really doesn't narrow it down." "The great one" "oh, right"

The other side are names that come up because of propaganda, especially attempts to bolster an image or to diminish a reputation after the person has died. These are more popular within that country, and usually more close to said person's lifetime. Think "Dubya" in America for GWB. The name is unlikely to be understood by most 100 years from now, and even most children today might not understand the reference, but people of a certain age will mostly pick up what you mean relatively easily. But again, there's usually a short shelf life for these things because it's a biased term, and it's not going to show up in reference guides, encyclopedias, or official histories (at least not as one of the main important things to know about this person so it will eventually boil down to a neat bit of pub trivia or something the professional scholars of that invidual know, but won't be common outside of that small circle.

That comes in part with a rise in standards of professional academia and publishing. It was not uncommon to publish direct attacks against politicians, leaders, etc. with names of all sorts. King George "The Royal Brute" or other such "wicked tyrants". These types of publishings would be distributed as pamphlets and the like, and they could even gain popularity outside of the country it was intended for. So names might stick that way, but again, only so long as the people around to have read and remembered -- and cared passionately enough about the subject.

It would kinda be like if we named our current politicians off of names people on Facebook gave them -- but we don't, and for good reason.

Instead, these days, if you want to learn about events happening under one politician you're likely going to encounter peer-reviewed or tightly policed systems online in the forms of Wikipedia, news articles, published books, etc. More people are going to become instantly familiar with the individuals by their birth names, and instantly familiar with their role in whatever conflict. These may still need to nicknames being created (and if you search in the right places there are plenty for modern politicians), but they won't be enough to drown out all the other more polished publishings.

What does everyone believe about the reichstag fire? Was it van Der Lubbe,or something bigger?

Who was the actual first pope?

It's fairly complicated, but here's a good rundown of the issues here https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2jhahz/who_is_the_first_historically_verifiable_pope_of/

I see. So we don't really know for sure, then.

[removed]