Cleveland's wife is reported to have said to the wife of Benjamin Harrison (the 23rd President) "don't change the drapes or furnishings, we'll be back in 4 years" when Cleveland's term as the 22nd President ended.

Anither issue I remember reading about Liberia is that Abolitionists thought of Africa as one large homogeneous place, ignoring the various regions inhabited by different tribes and nations that the African American slaves or their ancestors had come from initially.

I can't remember where I read it, but Hitler sought a 10 year long war, figuring that it would take 10 years of warfare to achieve all of his goals and have a nuke so figure with that idea he would want to or have to fight from 1939 until 1949 and just as the other poster pointed out I also read that the Nazi's own assessment was they wouldn't have a nuke until 1947 meaning that with Hitler thinking he needed 10 years, and his high command figuring that they wouldn't have a nuke until 1947, that even after getting the nuke they would still need some 18-24 more months of war for Hitler to achieve all his goals.

Nudity has a strange and odd history as to how societies have viewed it over history. But as what you're asking about is most likely the Edwardian influence on that era in Europe. With the death of Queen Victoria, the prudish Victorian era had come to a close and the more flamboyant and and open Edwardian era began. King Edward VII was a bovivant and loved the excesses of life. This translated into a freer society in terms of nudity and sex. Also this was a time of "accepted" medical practices and the "settled science" of the day were being questioned which lead to a growing interest in naturism, basically nudism in the woods, countryside, beach resorts, anywhere away from cities of smog, pollution and disease. The women on bicycles are probably advertising for a naturist resort where clothes were barred, people bathed regularly, focus was on a healthy diet and daily exercise for the time the person spent there, the naturism movement spawned magazines (one of which H&E which stands for Health & Efficiency was started in 1900 & continues today to be in publication) posters and short movies. Naturism was about reconnecting with nature by being naked outside but also about better health and over all quality of life, naturists often didn't smoke or consume alcohol which was more than unusual at that time. The opposition to this came from the United States where it was seen as pornographic and sinful and these posters, magazines and films were largely banned, people caught in possession, mailing them or buying them could be arrested and jailed.

While the Monarch is the Head of the Church there are 2 things I see that keep it from being a Theocracy,

1.) The religion though a state religion is not imposed as the only allowed religion in the country, as it qould be in a Theocracy. The UK is home to Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, many other forms of Christianity, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians and many other people and also people whp subscribe to a religion or are Atheist. All are allowed to freely practice and exist without the state penalizing them for not being Anglican.

2.) The role as Head of the Church of England coexists with the role of Monarch and theoretically could be separated or delegated to another individual though this has never happened and most likely never will. It exists seperately as a safeguard against Republicanism, i.e. should the UK become the Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and do away with the Monarchy as it did between 1649-1660 with the Commonwealth. The role as Head of the Church of England transferred from Charles I to Charles II despite Charles II living in exile in France and the commonwealth heads were Puritans Oliver Cromwell and then his son Richard Cromwell who inherited ran the country as the "Lord Protector" (which was also a hereditary leadership office) so the office of Head of the Church of England is seperate from the Monarch while simultaneously being held by the Monarch and because the office of that role is separate technically the Monarch isn't acting in the role of Head of the Church of England while doing their job as Monarch. Think of the Head of the Church of England as a form of inherited Papacy or Bishopric where a man or a woman who inherits it. The Pope is actually in the same situation he is both Head of the Catholic Church but also he is the elected King of Vatican the country. So the Pope too a religious head while simultaneously being a monarch.

Fetishes are by nature a product of the sexualization of a non sexual thing for sexual gratification. An easy one to explain is urophila or the fetishistic sexual obsession with urine, there are many versions of this paraphilia but chiefly it's thought it is caused in some people who are raised in extremely religious households where the rare time they can touch their genitals or explore their sensations is during urination therefore at the onset of their sexual awakening they associate urinating with the ability to even momentarily touch their genitals and possibly engage in a quick act of masturbation these episodes continue and out it grows to where the individual associates urine with sex and will seek out a partner to engage with them and play out that fantasy. Feet maybe in a society like most Western cultures where we usually wear a foot covering like a shoe rhat covers the whole foot and that seeing people nearly naked in swimsuits at a beach including their feet may initiate a sexual feeling in an individual that eventually becomes a foot fetish, of course there are other possibilities too. Recording them is as old as the written word, several ancient texts talk of people and their sexual proclivities including punishments for some, even the Bible has rules against things that are fetishes and notes them. Kraft- Ebing like you say was one of the first if not the first to write it down and study it, although his ideas were very much like many others of his day, incorrect and subsequently disproven. He thought in the same vein as the Church that sex was an act for procreation alone and that any other sex was a perversion and may require "treatment".

It was a few factors, in addition to Stalin being in power for more than over a decade prior and the higher death count, Stalin also had first cultivated a cult of personality, purged not only critics but allies too, and though Stalin did it in the name of communism's idea of atheism, Stalin and Hitler were both personally antisemitic and targetted Jews. They both targetted Catholics and other religious and ethnic groups for example Slavs for Hitler and Ukrainians for Stalin, both targeted Gypsyies just to name 2 groups. And although Stalin did allow for the Russian Orthodox Church to start operating again openly in Russia during WWII and to continue (Stalin prior to joining Lenin's communist group had been a seminarian and was training to be an Orthodox Church Priest) because it was his religion and he allowed for a worship of it because it was sanctioned by him, while Hitler was building a religion that was based on his vision that would be sanctioned by him. The OSS (the CIAs predecessor) had a lot of knowledge on these men that was shared between themselves and the British and they saw little difference between Stalin and Hitler. Also some at that time actually considered Stalin worse and that working with him after Hitler turned on Stalin in Barbarossa as a kind of a deal with the Devil.

Oh so much to unpack! So George III was a complex character in history and it's easy to paint a person as good vs bad, tyrant vs benevolent and so on. Now, there are a handful of people throughout history that are easily painted by their character and actions but Mad King George isn't one of them. George was firstly deeply saddened by the loss of the North American colonies and was in agreement that a reform in how they were ruled was needed but obviously disagreed that it the change had to be through a war. He wasn't a tyrant, far from it, he often had to make hard decisions in a time where there wasn't any fast form of communication so, he would send an order and by the time it got to North America was enforced and the people reacted good or bad and he recieved word of it, it was often far too late to change course or tweak it in a way that was meaningful or worked for the people in North America. As for taxes, the majority of people from the early 1600's up until the end of the Seven Years War (1756-1763) came to North America because they often were free from paying any tax at all, it was very hard to enforce taxation especially on the fringes of the colonies. When taxes were finally levied to pay off debts from the Seven Years War, which had begun in North America and plunged the entire world into what some historians have dubbed "World War 0" it was a common tax on the mostlt previously untaxed citizens which was 0.25% of what the same people paid in the United Kingdom proper, for example using modern US currency, if a citizen in England had to pay $1,000.00 annually then the same citizen in British North America paid $0.25. Now that's an extremely oversimplification however, they paid an extremely small fraction compared to their counterparts back in the main part of the Kingdom. What George III actually taxed that angered the "colonists" were imports, exports & luxury goods. This affected the wealthy land owners in coastal and near costal towns & merchants in major port cities, who did pay high taxes and because they were in a major port city the taxation was easily enforced. The tax on tea for example an item from Asia, that had to be specially packaged and shipped was huge but most British North Americans didn't drink it, instead they drank locally made beer and spirits or raw milk, tea was drink for the wealthy of the time. Sugar was taxed but most common people sweetened their food with honey, honey you could farm on your own, sugar had to be shipped from the Caribbean and processed. Postage was taxed but postage was mostly used by the wealthy and merchants when shipping items across the Atlantic or when sending letters concerning business. Most common people never traveled more than 12 miles outside their home town/city on average and had no purpose to send letters or use any postage. So the wealthy felt that they carried an uneven and unfair amount of the tax burden. The King also been having minor attacks of what some think was porphyria (it could've been another mental illness bipolar disorder is also a possibility) since 1765 and continued throughout the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. He finally had a major attack which spanned 1788-1789 (1789 is when George Washington assumed the office of President) and another which began in 1811 and lasted until he died in 1820. George's mental health was such that in 1788 there was an attempt at establishing a Regency and again in 1811 it was under established under Prince George of Wales (future King George IV) who was a fat fop more interested in his Catholic mistress, food and his own hedonistic pursuits than governing. The US didn't "break free from a tyrant through a just war" as it was led by wealthy citizens and fought a British government in some level of disarray, in an era of poor intercontinental communications, led by a bunch of wealthy land owners and merchants who had an explicit goal of not paying taxes at all, So while it's easy to paint King George III as a tyrant and despot, he actually was a complex leader who was neither sinner nor saint and had the hard task of running a Kingdom that was restricted by the times and technology available.

Since the formation of this nation the United States Marine Corps has had a few people throughout the history of the United States who have tried to either disband them completely or roll them and their mission into the Army. George Washington didn't want any standing fighting force after the Revolution and we can debate as to why, personally I think he saw a standing military as a threat that potentially could overthrow him. To that end he did disband the Navy, sent sailors home, transferred the officers and ships to the Army. Then he was trying to disband the Army when he was convinced that shrinking it and keeping its mission limited was a better idea which he agreed and did and also tried to disband the Marines. The Marines saved themselves by becoming the military force specifically tasked with protecting the Nation's Capital in so much that they also had to police the streets and assist fire brigades if a fire broke out, all in the name of protecting the Capital.

Vlad Tepes, aka Vlad Dracula and his brother Radu were imprisoned with their father Vald Dracul by the Ottoman Sultan, within a year Vlad Dracul was released but he supported the Hungarian King (a Catholic) during the Varna Crusades, Vlad Dracula and Radu were kept as prisoners to secure that Vlad Dracul didn't go too far in his Christian support. Eventually the boys were released Radu stayed and coverted to Islam, and Vlad Dracula went back to Wallachia and stayed an Orthodox Christian who had both Orthodox Christian and Roman Catholic allies.

The name of the nobleman escapes me but there was once a Prince-Bishop who as a Catholic Cleric was committed to Clerical Celibacy but as he was in charge of some small minor German speaking state (this was well before Lutheranism) but when his I believe father died he became the ruler of the Principality and due to heredity and maintaining the power of that position the Pope actually released him from Bishop duites and allowed him to marry so that he could rule his state, marry and produce an heir which he did. Technically he didn't jeopardize his position in so much that fate forced him into the position of being a ruling Prince. If memory serves me he wasn't the original ruling Prince's first son I believe he was the third son which is why he originally chose a career in the Church.