Ask Historians

I came across the data from the book mentioned on the post, even borrowed it on the internet archive to give a quick look at it, and couldn't find the sources used for the data, so I what I'm asking is basically anything related to this data or book or both, like how accurate the data is, how they reached it, or where else I can find sources of similar kind of data. Any and every help is highly appreciated fellow comrades.

What fascinating stuff do you know about the Roman empire?

You often hear a lot about the space race from the USA side, and how great it was. However from my understanding of it, such a project was only possible due to the continued exploitation of both local Unitedstadians and people/countries abroad and its narrative is often removed from the broader context of the Cold War and the Red Scare. How was the Soviet space program understood, praised and critiqued by the broader Soviet population of the time? Specially considering how expensive and novel all the technology must have been.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/223266

Someone sent me this link about it in relation to the rise of fascism in Germany and how the KDP is the one responsible for Hitler’s rise, which contradicts other things I’ve read

Y’all got a summary ? I mainly focus in American history and its’ labor history, so I’m fr out of my usual history babbling zone. If you wanna call me stupid that’s fine too~~___~~

There are a bunch of well-researched lists of US government atrocities (including "List of Atrocities committed by US authorities" Lemmy's own @[email protected].

But I can't find an equivalent for the UK government, just "5 worst atrocities" listicles, and this too-specific and incomplete list fof "war crimes" on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes

Well done UK government propaganda department, I guess 😕

Anyone know of a better list squirrelled away somewhere, or some resources which might help make one?

Should I be happy or sad that they Yeeted thier president? It's hard to find good info about, no one I respect seems to be talking about it.

I'm taking a 20th century music history course right now, and the professor is a strongly anticommunist progressive. Before he even started he claimed Stalin was unequivocally the worst person of the 20th century, if not all time. One of the most suspicious parts was when he told us about Prokofiev's statement against the capitalist world made upon his return to the USSR in 1936. He claimed that this was clearly forced out of him, despite having just told us how he had squandered 20 years trying and failing to find work abroad (one of the only things he did was a commission by a fruit company for a fruit-opera?). Additionally my teacher conceded that there is no record of Prokofiev's personal views from this time.

Then the is the whole Soviet Realism/Formalism thing. My teacher said these terms were intentionally ill-defined so that musicians/artists could be censored, imprisoned, or killed at the whim of Stalin. Again, I feel skeptical about how cartoonishly evil this description is.

So what is the history of music and art in the Soviet Union minus the Western propaganda? Is there a book or other resource I could use to learn about this?

I haven't done a lot of research into this one because whenever I try to look into it all the sources are either complete wackos I wouldn't trust to tell me much of anything, or people clearly just repeating the state narrative. I used to blankly dismiss the idea in my Libshit days and I would like to examine it more in depth. So I would very much appreciate opinions and good sources to read up on it.

Hi all! :hugging face:
It has been a while I am interested in the relationship of migration and international socialist/communist movements.

A bunch of comrades bumped into the 1918 Constitution of the RSFSR for a non-professional translation of an op-ed. In particular, we have focussed on articles 20 and 22.
Surprisingly, we found that the English translations MIA [0] and The Nation provide are missing some content. The original text (same version, different sources: GARANT art. 20, GARANT art. 22, tversu.ru archived on wikicommons) mentions foreign peasants as eligible citizens without any particular formality (art. 20) and the constitutional incompatibility of any limitation of the juridical equality of national minorities. (art. 22) The translations in other languages we found (see below) are closer to the Russian text than the English translations.

Do you think that the Russian-English discrepancy has any philologic or historic significance? Also: since English is lingua franca in many countries, a significant discrepancy may impact the diffusion in other languages (see e.g. the Portuguese translation on wikipedia, which is a translation of a translation).

Other languages

• Italian: "ai contadini che non si avvalgono del lavoro altrui", "limitazione della loro uguaglianza giuridica"
• German: "oder zu der keine fremde Arbeit ausnutzenden Bauernschaft", "Beschränkung ihrer Gleichberechtigung"
• French: "paysans qui ne vivent pas du travail d'autrui", "limitation de leur égalité juridique"
• Castilian: "campesinado que no vive del trabajo ajeno", "limitación de su igualdad jurídica"
• Polish: "włościaństwa, nie żywiącego się cudzą pracą, "ograniczenie ich praw"

sorry im probably gonna major in history and i want to know

See title. Follow the rules, and you're welcome to post to your heart's content!