I'm starting a project having to do with this topic, and as I don't have much background knowledge in this area, it'd be great if you could show me some directions in which I could start going. One thing that seems to be a common theme is how news reporting changed from the beginning to end of the war. Also, what it had to do with anti-war movements and how we now think of wars as unfortunate rather than an opportunity for glory. You don't need a complete answer, any ideas that I could look further into would be great. Thank you!!

I've seen some of his other documentaries, like The Vietnam war and have recently been interested in learning more about the American Civil War. I am aware there are issues in terms of accuracy and perspective regarding The Vietnam War, although I found it very very interesting and engrossing despite keeping that in mind.

I was thinking of watch his Civil War documentary, but before making the time commitment, is it worth watching? I'm not American so I haven't really grown up with much beyond a few pages in a textbook on the subject. Will I learn valuable information about the conflict, or will it mostly give me a misinformed picture of the conflict? Or perhaps somewhere in between (ie. it seems like I won't learn a lot about the nuance of the political situation in both North and South, but the information on battles themselves and military is decent)?

They declared war on Uruguay too, but that's much less of a factor.

I’m really interested in medieval Russia or the period of Ivan the terrible and before, but I’ve had a hard time finding resources around that period. Does anyone have any recommendations?

I've read many times that the citizens of the Byzantine Empire, despite being referred to as Greeks by foreigners, and speaking Greek, considered themselves to be Roman. Greeks now identify with their Hellenic heritage. When did this change take place, and what exactly prompted it?

On January 1945, the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp. After WWII ended, Soviet minister of foreign affairs Andrei Gromyko — otherwise infamous for his obstructionism — approved the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine. In the ensuing war, Czechoslovakia provided the Zionists with military equipment while the US didn't. And when the state of Israel was finally established in 1948, the USSR was the first country to recognize it.

Yet, Israel never aligned with the Soviet Union — quite the contrary. This enraged Stalin, who brutally turned not only on Israel but also on Jews in general whom he now suspected of disloyalty. By the '50s, Israel was so solidly anchored in the Western camp that it staged a joint invasion of Sinai with France and the UK in response to Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal. From then on, the Eastern Bloc would align with Arab states and endorse aggressive anti-Zionism until the bitter end.

My question is: why? What exactly motivated Israel to seemingly ignore and eventually turn down Soviet courtship?

My understanding is that smaller urban settlements tended to be administrated by the ecclesiastic officials or sometimes local landed aristocrats, and as they grew their larger populations and richer economies put the urbanites in better positions to operate with greater autonomy from the local powers (usually supported by a royally backed charter filled with "liberties" in exchange for providing military labor and paying hefty sums of money to their monarchs). But it seems like castles provide these lords with what were in effect citadels from which they could dominate an urban population to extract taxes and manpower for themselves and their ventures. Did castle-towns ever receive charters or other forms of autonomy? Were they stirred up and supported by outside powers to undermine the castles at their center, or were their interests too closely bound to set townspeople and garrisons against one another? Did castellans have to keep building up their castles to dominate growing towns and prevent the encroachment of royal authority and urban autonomy?

My fellow modders and I are creating a mod for Hearts of Iron IV that besides other features tries to get as close to historical WW2 production numbers as possible. For tanks this has been rather easy, and the same is true for ships and other equipment like rifles or artillery pieces. We largely rely on the publications of Paul Kennedy and Mark Harrison, who even replied to our emails and helped us tremendously.
Now we are beginning our work on the various aircraft and we quickly came to the realization that while we have quite accurate numbers for the monetary production costs, overall production capacity and output, we don't have any actual manhour statistics. That is quite contrary to what we encountered with especially tanks, but also more or less any other equipment. This seems to only impact planes which is kind of surprising. It also makes it almost impossible to smack a number on a single plane and call it "production cost/time".

Now the question is, is this just an oversight on our end and have we just failed to find the proper source yet? Which would be not too surprising since we are all amateurs, but on the other hand we are all experienced with online archive research. I have found around a dozen papers on the Luftwaffes production numbers for WW2, why it failed yadayada...but none of the papers mentioned any exact numbers how long it took to produce a plane of any kind, how many people were necessary for it or anything like that. Finding such information for something like the T-34, the M4 or the Tiger is pretty easy in comparison. So why is that, and does anyone here actually know one or multiple sources?

If so, how or when did it fall out of use, since nowadays a good old yeehaw is rarely yelled. If not, why and when did it start becoming such a stereotype associated with the 'Wild West'?

When there is speculation based on letters about people like Lincoln (and Joshua Speed) or Hamilton (and John Laurens) being in love, its often said how men were much freer in how they expressed feeling even in platonic friendships, and were more flowery (a favorite descriptor Ive seen) in prose. But aren't there enough examples of non love letters to be able to distinguish ones that more can be read into? Interested in what makes it so complicated.

We read a lot about the miserable working conditions in the 19th and early 20th century.

One thing I’ve always wondered is how a 12 or 16 hour day involving manual labor is even done? How could one work at a place like a steel mill for years on end under those conditions?

I’ve seen arguments that this mode of work was relatively new, as peasant farmers worked hard but had many punctuated breaks and off time during parts of the year.

Would a miner literally be wielding a pick for the entire time? Did workers sneak breaks and meals? After several hours, did the pace of work drop off and were employers okay with it?

My question revolves specifically around working conditions in the US, Canada, and Western Europe during this period.

I have recently watched a certain historian video about David Irving and his lies, and as always when the name of Irving gets dropped a bunch of Nazis and Nazi apologists show up in the comments. I know its either blind delusion, hatred, or justification and battling someone in the comments of youtube is like rolling in the dirt with pigs, they like that. However those are real existing people behind those comments and they are probably around us.

How do you actually skillfully refute those people that claim Zyklon B was just used for delousing, and that Possener Reden never existed and that Hitler was actually against genocide of the Jews?

I thank you in advance and hope this is the right channel.