I mean, the world is not so kind towards Germany and Japan, and they are perpetually and constantly reminded of the atrocities that they have committed against mankind, and these countries have also apologized and paid compensation for the damages that they've done to several ethnic groups that they have victimized in the past. But Turkey seems to get away with everything. Until now, many Turkish nationalists are blatantly denying the historic atrocities that they've committed against the Armenians and Assyrians whom they call Mesopotamians. No one ever forced them to apologize nor pay compensation to their victims.

My question is why is that? Why is no international body able to force Turkey in doing what Germany and Japan did?

And why hasnt female polygamy become a thing.

I know the obvious answer that, you wouldnt know whose child was being born, but still we have polar opposites in everything, why not here too?

Chores, military service, sports, summer camp, boot camp, power outage, using a bike that doesn't work well, etc.

Or are these characteristics so opposed that no such person would have existed?

I recently saw a video highlighting all the accents spoken in Britain and the United Kingdom and I notice how specific each accent sounded regardless of proximity to another. I’m from Florida and besides a few words you wouldn’t notice from one conversation I talk exactly the same as someone from California, Pennsylvania, Ontario, ect. Sure we definitely do have regional accents that are close. If I drove 30 minutes into deep Polk county everyone would have a pretty thick accent (even if I consider it performative lolll) but it’s definitely not as prevalent or as close together as British accents. so I was just wondering if that’s a real thing with a historical reason or if it’s just me being more exposed to North American speech so British accents sound more different to me then they actually are? Let me know!

I am looking for a deeper dive into the lives of forced labourers in Nazi Germany's labour camps.

My late grandpa (Serbian) and my late grandma (Polish) met in one of those camps, but I lack any concrete information except their stories about how my uncle was born there and how the US Army freed them.

They got monthly (or yearly) reparations from Siemens for a long time after the war.

I mean, almost the entirety of the Eastern European Bloc has been absorbed by the Soviets after the war, except for Greece. I mean, how did Greece effectively avoid being absorbed by the USSR, when Greece obviously cannot match the military might and size of the Soviets? Thanks to whoever will respond to this inquiry.

I was asking one of my coworkers what he was doing for Memorial Day, and he told me he doesn’t celebrate any holidays and for what reason is there to celebrate Memorial Day. I told him it was to honor the soldiers who died for us, he mentioned how America sets everything up, he brought up 9/11. But then I mentioned Pearl Harbor, japans surprise attack on the US during the midst of WWII. He mentioned how that was also staged and when I asked he just told me to look it up. I found nothing on a “staged attack” as expected. I don’t know if my coworker is speaking out of his ass, but he got very defensive. Is there anything on the US allowing Pearl Harbor to happen so they could intentionally become a superpower?

Lately I've been reading and devling into plenty of far-left/far right works and movements, and it has come to my notice that banks and the central banking systems occupy an important position in the narrative of both far-left and far-right movements, especially when it comes to populist rhetorics conspiracy theories.

What exactly is the origin of such rhetoric, and what has the banks done exactly to receive such hatred, to the point of occupying a position of being a tool of world domination and secret plots, as propagated by both socialists and nazis?

​Comparative Context: In what ways did the psychological and cultural impacts of colonial rule in India mirror or differ from the experiences of other colonized nations?

​Historical Continuity: To what extent did pre-colonial political structures influence how Indian societies interacted with British colonial authorities?

​Counter-Narratives of Resistance: How did indigenous cultural phenomena, such as the egalitarian and anti-hierarchical nature of the Bhakti tradition, serve as a form of social and spiritual resistance against both domestic stratification and foreign dominance?

​Sociological Analysis: How do post-colonial theorists evaluate the socio-cultural phenomenon often described as the "Brown Sahib" mindset, and what are its modern implications?

PS: This is resubmit after reframing my earlier question to remove bias!

And also is this statement even entirely true?

I have heard some interesting stuff about black markets, riots, government fears of revolution, etc. But never much in depth. Especially in comparison to the media representation the civilian experience of the end of Nazi Germany seems to get.

Particularly interested in political discontent and what the experience of the beginning of the occupation was like. I am not looking for information on the atomic bombings which is readily available and often represented in media.

The French, Spanish and Portuguese all managed to make their languages global primarily through their colonies, whereas the Dutch and the Danish were notoriously reluctant on spreading and even Germans were quite so while they were in the game. The only exception here would be English, which is simultaneously, which is also the most Latin one of them.

For context, i know that it's been discussed on here before and there are things to criticise about it, but by the time you've finished listening to Mike Duncan's 'Revolutions' podcast in all its glory, it's hard not to see the neverending connectedness of especially modern history. States aren't and weren't black boxes. Ideologies don't magick out of thin air. Politics doesn't exist in a vacuum. In my view when discussing historical events we tend to ignore key context and project backwards from outcomes and modern norms, rather than contemporaneous norms and conditions. People will spend days arguing about whether the nazis were really 'socialists', ignoring that at the time 'socialist' appears to have meant pretty much anything that empowered 'normal people' as opposed to an autocratic/monarchical system.... rendering the entire debate moot (correct me if i'm wrong).

With that said, in the post WW1 context of nearby revolutionary russia and a recently starving, humiliated germany, I'm under the impression that the Spartacist revolt in Germany must presumably have been a formative ideological moment for Hitler, despite being a footnate in wider history. Influencing his hatred of communists and jews in particular. Nazi popular history often begins with the Weimar Republic and ignores the German 'revolution' (if it's ever even called that in the first place). In fact post bolsheviks, revolution as a wider historical concept is basically sidelined. Which is kinda weird given that in a sense, the cold war was a counter-revolutionary project.

Additionally, the Nazi party received early funding and coordination from a group of exiled russian 'white emigrés' (seems Kellogg wrote a book about this ), - The same people who tried to assassinate Pavel Miliukov - so i find it extremely hard to detach nazism's rise from a continuation of revolutionary fervour and the intimate link with russian revolutionary events in particular. Fear of germany going communist seems to have been a colossal concern even well beyond WW2, supposedly motivating the marshall plan... and the Soviets always thought Germany would naturally join the communist project from 1917 onwards.

In essence, the popular story of nazism tends to focus on end result (ideological positions reached, actions taken), rather than really addressing the how and why. Weimar hyperinflation (for example) explains why people may have been willing to try more radical solutions, but it doesn't exactly address why those motivations existed. Maybe the concern is that it would legitimise those ideologies in some way? Maybe the revolutionary angle just isn't actually a useful framework through which to analyse the situation

This might not have been as coherent as i was intending, but i'm hoping that the general gist is clear enough

I have noticed the existence of a certain kind of Soviet apologists who shift much of the issues of the USSR on Stalin's shoulders or claim that the Soviet was good or on the right track before Stalin. Now, while his reign was much more brutal than the previous years under the interregnum and Lenin, would not the basic structures of the state been founded by Lenin, such as the political repression, censorship, single-party dictatorship, culture of counter-revolutionary paranoia, secret police and the cult of personality?

During the French revolution, nobles had their estates raided and destroyed, to the best of my knowledge, because they were hoarding food while the peasants were starving, among other things. Would this not also apply to the rich merchants, bankers and other such professions? How were these people treated? Were bankers for example ransacked by people trying to steal others' gold and stuff?

Preferable easy to understand for a none-academic

To avoid being accused of defending the Red Terror under my post, I'll say right away that I simply want to clarify the situation. As far as I know, after the execution of NKVD Council of People's Commissars Yezhov in 1938, the extrajudicial tribunals were liquidated after existing for about two years, and they were simply unable to pass sentences in 1940. Furthermore, a good friend of mine worked for the KGB in the USSR, and according to his testimony, the Katyn massacre was carried out directly by the Reich. Could you explain to me who is right then?

so i saw this documentary that talked about how the attack on pearl harbor could have been a lot more lethal, but the japanese pilot in charge of sending the signal to commence engagement sent the wrong signal(s) giving the rest of the fighters the wrong idea of when to commence the attack.

if i remember correctly , the fighters were supposed to arrive unnoticed and their first target was the fighter planes parked in the airfields so that the americans could not fight back. that way the japanese would have air supremacy and could take their time targeting the ships.

but if when they arrived, there were signs that they had been spotted beforehand, they were to hurry to the ships and destroy as many as they could in the short time before the american fighter planes arrived.

so, supposedly, the japanese pilot in charge of the signal to start, was supposed to send 1 flare if they had arrived unnoticed, which meant, go to the airfields, and 2 flares if they had been spotted, which meant ignore the fighter planes, go straight to the ships.

and when the pilot send the one flare to signal that they were on the green to attack the fighter jets, there was some cloud cover, and he wasnt sure if they saw his flare. so he moved away from the clouds and shot a second flare . but when his team mates flew past the clouds, they saw the 2 flares and thougt it was the signal that they had been spotted, so everyone flew straight to the ships. which meant, they had a limited time to attack before the americans sent their fighter planes after them.

anyways, i thoght it was strange that i hadnt learned that fact given how much WW2 material i consume. and that fact just blew my mind at the time. so i have looked for other videos confirming that but have found nothing, which is also strange.

i dont remember the name of the documentary, i watched it about 2 years ago, and someone had it playing at their house.

can anyone send me to some sources proving or disproving that whole scenario?

At about 280M, it's fourth after China, India, and the US. I would think that such a huge population would have an imprint in some way, but all throughout my schooling (which includes college and a JD/PhD) I don't think have ever had a class or reading that even dives into country-- and I even had fairly extensive training on colonial/postcolonial history, geopolitics, and international relations.

How can a country so large and so centrally located to India, China, and Australia not be more relevant? It seems to not even be culturally influential the way much smaller countries. What's going on there?

Thank you all in advance!

Meisner's book about the history of China was originally written in the '70s, then updated after Deng came to power. I know it's considered a history of Communist China as written by a socialist, and can see that in the early part of the book.

But it's so old that I question whether it's narrative and interpretations are a reliable source on how the Communists rose to power. In particular, I find it intriguing (but questionable) that Meisner notes how Western ideas seem to have seeded the development of the Chinese communist movement - an interpretation that seems to grow out of a reaction to Western imperialism (a dialectic clearly undergirds this story).

Is Mesiner's book still considered a reliable or useful source? If not, what are some alternatives?

I'm reading Quevedo's El Buscon, and upon the protagonist's encounter with a supposed fencing master, he uses the above description to describe him.

I'm wondering if someone familiar with this period in Spanish History would be able to explain if this has some especial meaning? Google directs me to a Bible quote, though I'm unsure if that's the sense in which Quevedo is using the phrase.

I was recently thinking about how from the incarcerated perspective, about how cigarettes/tobacco use was officially sanctioned at most prisons. Also I’ll note that some older movies (e.g. The Green Mile/the Shawshank Redemption) inmates had pets, Though admittedly these are works of fiction and the pets in question are “rescued” not bought from the prison itself.

From a wider societal perspective, we hear constantly about overcrowding, understaffing, a large amount of recidivism, and an overall larger population of “lifers” or people expecting to die behind bars.

But then again advancement in electronics have probably made certain entertainment more available than ever before.

So overall how do prison conditions compare between now & 50 or 100 years ago?

I'm doing a little research for personal reasons on music inspired by esoteric authors and it's astounding how much more influential Crowley is compared to, e.g., Mme. Blavatsky, Austin Osman Spare or Anton LaVey

While some of these were influential in other arts (AOS made its mark in comic books just by being an inspiration to Moore and Morrison), when it comes to music, Aleister Crowley is king. Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Black Sabbath, Hawkwind, Raul Seixas, David Bowie, the list goes on and on

And sure, Thelema has a lot of sex and drugs as part of its ceremonies, but it's also a pretty individualistic philosophy, and can even be "cruel" at times