Featured Answers

Active contributors today


I think it affected soldiers heavily while it had a terrible impact on civilians in particular
1) in the areas affected directed by the fighting;
2) in Germany and Austria-Hungary.


We may think that for soldiers (of any country and any service) in WWI total war meant war 24/7. This simply mean that the soldier never really "disconnected" from the horror of the front being continuously under pressure from the traumatic experiences suffered on the front line (heavy bombing, machine gun massacres, poisonous gasses, torpedoing, snipers, filth, disease, vermin and in general...horrible misery) even if resting far from it.

It is interesting to notice the huge numbers of reported cases of shock and paranoia induced by shelling (shellshock) or fatigue that affected many soldiers (before they were treated simply as cowards but during WWI the incredible number of soldiers affected led the authorities to recognize it as a real issue and a kind of disease).
[A WWI soldier experiencing shellshock]

For the civilian population it was bad as well. We can think, for example, at the population of Belgium that under the threat of the advancing German troops fled as fast as possible leaving their possession behind and most of the time being shelled by both sides during the process. On top of it the rumor of Belgian snipers left behind to shoot at Germans troops made the civilians a perfect target for retaliations and scapegoats for the fury of the Germans.

On the other hand the blockade imposed by the mighty British fleet to the commercial shipping starved the two central powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary, up to the point of causing riots for food in many large cities. Some authors suggest that the capitulation of Germany was triggered by the disastrous internal situation of the civilian population (lack of food mainly).
[Food Riot In Berlin 1915]


The Meiji emperor introduced a constitution that established an elected parliament, a national education system, and the (on-paper) abolition of the feudal class system, among other reforms.


Starting with his restoration to the imperial throne, the Meiji emperor worked with political supporters and counsellors to make Japan a more modern and powerful country.

The feudal lords and samurai lost their lands and class privileges, and with the destruction of the strict feudal class system, individuals were free to enter into professions that had been denied to them in the past. This helped create a boom in industry, which gave Japan a new financial security.

Additionally, the Meiji emperor and his advisors created a constitution as a "gift" to the people, establishing an elective parliament called the Diet. The government also established a national education system. Both of these moves proved popular both with Japanese citizens and with Western powers, to whom Japan wanted to appear modern to in order to encourage international cooperation and trade.

The emperor also created a national military, staffed by a conscription system. Japan would go on to win two large international conflicts (the Sino-Japanese War in 1894-1895, and the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-1905). While these sudden military successes worried some of the world's great powers, they also established Japan on the world stage as a modern and successful country.

The Meiji emperor's contributions to Japan's modernization are often looked upon favorably, as they brought a formerly feudal country right up to the cutting edge of contemporary politics, industry, and social reforms at the time.


The first woman Prime Minister in the United Kingdom.


Margaret Thatcher became British Prime Minister in 1979 until her resignation in 1990(she was reelected twice). She had become the leader of the Conservative Party in 1975 and that party won in 1979 against the Labour Party led by James Callaghan.

Margaret Thatcher was known for her being tough(she was nicknamed the "Iron Lady", she applied the the remedies of the Neo-Liberal schools of economics to solve the crisis the UK had sunk into.

The UK in the seventies had experienced the most severe crisis in its history since the thirties. Unemployment and inflation were combined in a phenomenon known as stagflation. The Trade Unions were paralyzing the country, the climax being the winter of discontent that preceded her election.

To pursue her objective to end socialism, she privatized massively all the companies which had been nationalized by the Labour Governments since 1945, she closed the unproductive pits in the mining industry and she favored deregulations in the financial sector.

On the international scales, she partnered with Ronald Reagan with whom she shared a strong anti-communist leaning. They both had similar poisitions on the economy, the Soviet Union and communism.


The great Schism was a very minor factor as a cause of the First Crusade.


The Pope may have felt that the Crusade to retake Jerusalem from the Seljuk Turks might help heal the Schism between the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox Christians.

The main cause of the Crusade was the aggressive actions of the Seljuk Turks. The Turks had taken over large segments of Turkey that had been part of the Eastern Roman Empire. They had also conjured Syria and Israel including Jerusalem that had been part of Fatimides Islamic caliphate.

When the Seljuk Turks conquered Jerusalem they tried to turn Jerusalem into a Holy City like Mecca where only Muslims were allowed. This angered the Western Christians sparking the Crusades.

The Eastern Roman Empire felt that the Crusades would restore their control over the Middle East. The Western Catholic armies however did not return the conquered lands to the Eastern Roman Empire but craved out kingdoms for themselves.

The Crusade rather than doing anything to heal the Great Schism only increased the divide between the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.


There is no "copper age" and there is no "tin age". For that matter, there is no "wood age" either, even though wood was abundant and used for tools before (and after) the metals.


Ages are an arbitrary division of time. A day, a lunation or a year are not arbitrary. There is an astronomical event, independent of human intervention, defining and delimiting it.
The Stone Age, the bronze and Iron Age (or the Middle Ages) are construed by scientists and historians for their benefits to better understand the cursus and development of human events.

Ages are therefore denoted by the most significant aspect of the given time bracket and are delimited by the advent of the next one.

enter image source here

There is no copper age (nor tin age) because these metals were not significant to human development. There is no wood age because wood is not a discriminating factor having traversed undisturbed all ages.

Why are copper and tin non-significant? There are many reasons, one is that neither is particularly hard. But the most important is that they were probably discovered at the same time as bronze that turned out to be most useful for the production of hardware and arms. Do not forget that the War of Troy was fought with bronze swords and spears.

Tin, and copper are often found together, at the native state, in river beds mixed with mud and clay deposited on the banks.
This was the prime natural material used by the early man to shape his pottery. The first pots and bowls were dried in the sun but, as techniques evolved, they began to be "cooked" in rudimentary kilns.

The cooking went immediately from a few tens degrees to several hundreds and, at those temperatures, tin and copper melted oozing out of the mixture and of the kiln and joining into bronze, a gold tainted alloy that cooled down into solid, hard, firm rods that could be worked and shaped.

Soon came the first bronze weapons and a most significant step in human history only to be overtaken by iron for which an even higher temperature was needed (1000°C) that could only be attained by burning coal.

Fascinating story isn'it? I hope it helps you to realise that history and technology are the same science.


Sept 29/1938.


The Sudetenland crisis is often presented as the first affront made by Nazi Germany to international law and, shortly afterward, the invasion of Poland as the straw that broke the camel's back.

There is a great difference between the two German interventions.
Bohemia had been Habsburg territory for centuries. It was populated by a large minority of German speaking citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire who had been privileged under Maria Theresa and her successors.

The novel State of Czechoslovakia was carved out of the defeated Empire by the Peace of Versailles in 1918. German speaking Bohemians were neither consulted nor informed.
Such novel Czechoslovakians as Franz Kafka or Alfons Mucha were profoundly of German culture and would have resented being called anything but Imperial citizens.
Hitler's territorial claim in other words, had a leg to stand on (a long history and roughly 30% of the population plus 90% of the "elite" population).

Poland was a different story. The country had been quartered by foreign armies and the spoils shared among the aggressors at least three times in less than 100 years. Still, Poland had kept its identity, its language, its culture.

Chopin was never anything else but Polish, so was (later) Paderewski.
Liszt (a Hungarian) had closer friendship with Wagner (a German) than with Chopin (a fellow territorial citizen who wrote most of his music in Paris, not in Vienna, Budapest or Prague).
The kings of Poland had blood in common with the Bourbons, the king of Bohemia was an Elector of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Obviously there are other facts to be taken into account when considering the annexation of Sudetenland (such as the terms of the Munich agreement and their partial interpretation and implementation).
I meant to stress some of the reasons that made that event more palatable for the “powers” than the following one.

View more
Ask a question Filters
This filter has no results, see all questions.
Question type

Use these controls to find questions to answer

Need double-checking
Practice problems
Conceptual questions