Obviously, by the time of those old cartoons, specifically from the 40's to the 60's (and even more true through the 70's and 80's), the job of Blacksmith was becoming less and less useful in urban areas, where kids who could watch television lived. Why then use an anvil for the gags where a character gets hit on the head with a heavy object? Did the kids understand what it was? If not, why use this object?

I'm interested in the history of communism and the Cold War in East and Southeast Asia. I found a lot of resources online concerning Vietnam, Korea or even Cambodia but not so much for China. Basically my question is what it says in the title but more specifically:

- What kind of support did the US offer to the KMT-led ROC (or the CPC if it also did?) qualitatively and quantitatively, in the context of the Civil War? Economic, diplomatic, military?

- How important was the future of China as Communist/Nationalist perceived in the US? Related: who was responsible for the decision-making regarding China/at what level of government was the policy determined? Also, was there significant public and/or internal debate over the policy to conduct?

My question is perhaps already quite broad but I would be very grateful if you reddit historians could distinguish between different time periods when answering. I think this question is most relevant for the post-1945 part of the war but if there are important elements before that I'm interested too.

Thanks in advance for your answers!

If the US Navy knew it was under attack, how would it be a trap if the fleet knew to expect the Japanese fleet there?

Edit: it has been answered thank y’all!

As a French person who studied the American revolution, it seams that the Marquis de la Fayette is more of a hero of the American revolution than the French one.

In the musical Hamilton by Lin Manuel Miranda, La Fayette seams to wish to be anti-monarchist and free his people. From what I understand he seemed more on the side of the king. Did he wish for a more British like constitutional monarchy, did he support the rioting in Paris or is it more subtle than that?

I was playing an old Assassin's Creed mobile game that takes place during the Third Crusade, and in it you can use cartoon-style bombs as a weapon. I was wondering if any explosives were used by anyone during the Third Crusade, and if yes, what kind?

A professor in casual conversation claimed that Spain started to become more liberal with the Constitution of 1812 and even though it wasn't continously upheld during the twenty five that it existed until 1837, that was one the main reasons why the reactionary conservative criollo elites of the New World decided to breakaway from Spain.

For starters, the new Constitution recognized as Spanish citizens people born in both hemispheres of the Empire and it abolished feudalism, granted universal voting rights to all men, equality before the law and civil rights for indigenous, free blacks and mixed race people, among other liberal clauses for its time such as free enterprise and press, a parliamentary system, etc. It was this and more that was directly challenging the diametrically opposed conversative mores and privileges of the landed aristocracy and other powerful interest groups in the Americas .

Was this really one the reasons why the reactionary colonial elites decided to separate from peninsular Spain? I have always been taught that it was the opposite: that the colonies were liberal and the motherland was conservative and this is why they chose to revolt.

How did the lord of a large town keep track of who owned what house ? In skyrim there is a quest where you just steal the deed to a house and it becomes yours, how realistic would that be ? Was a deed really the only thing standing in tour way of homelessness ?

I know this sounds stupid but for things like school, church, and farmers being in the fields early how did people not oversleep before alarm clocks? I know roosters were one way but what about people in cities? Thank you.

I've always found the concept of impressment to be pretty disgusting, but surely there must have been people in the 18th-19th centuries who agreed. Was there any kind of coherent movement around this? Did those supporting the movement use abolitionist arguments? Or was there such national sentiment in favor of the navy that there was no way for a strong anti-press attitude to take hold?

There are not exactly many instances of Derrida and Habermas agreeing on something. Their shared conviction that Nietzsche and Hegel could be said to have been philosophical opposites is one of the more notable exceptions. The same way that Nietzsche's and Hegel's respective beliefs in the great men theory is a notable exception to their overall divergence,--indicated above and generally agreed on at least since Deleuze's intervention--never mind their different accounts of the function, significance, meaning and "purpose" of those who they deemed to be the great men (perhaps most readily seen in their respective remarks on Napoleon and to a certain degree Goethe). Be that as it may, to my knowledge, we have experienced a drastic loss of belief in the great men theory in the second half of the 20th century, under the influence of notions such as the death of the author and "post-modernist" (I hate this term) interventions and deconstructions. I believe that most historians of today no longer believe in the great men theory? If so, why not? Who or what had dealt the major blow to it? Have there been any historians or philosophers defending it in recent decades? Is it a contentious issue or is it, as it currently stands, an issue mostly settled? Thanks

So when you go online you see people claim all sorts of things to support their political ideology, one of them was people claiming the Holodomor couldn't possibiliy be the fault of the Communist Party and that it was all due to the ''Kulaks'' or that it was ''just a famine.''

I am no historian and I do realise that letting people die for being ''Kulaks'' is horrible, aside from this personal opinion, I wanted to ask real historians to what extend the Holodomor was preventable and what caused it.

Additionaly, where does Adam Smiths knowledge of China come from? Did he ever travel there or is it simply from other peoples stories?

Just wondered the history behind the role and its powers? Is it just purely ceremonial? They never seem to enforce anything but order if theres too much heckling. Seems that the PM can just lie at prime minister's questions or avoid answering them and I would of thought that surely the speaker can enforce a serious answer or something? Apologies if this question is too political wasn't sure where to post!

Are there any books that are solely or primarily about Ottoman empire's campaigns, wars, tactics and strategies, especially about the latter. I am currently reading Rhoads Murphey "Ottoman warfare" but in my opinion it is heavily diluted.

Did treatment change as news from Antioch arrived?

I understand that they were devout Christians, but how could they reconcile that with the killing and exile of Jewish and Muslim people? Was there any political motivations for wanting religious and ethnic uniformity?

I also read that there was a lot of anti-semitism motivated by the Jewish influence in the court and administrative level. Was this a contributing factor for Isabella and Ferdinand? Why would it be an issue for them if Jewish people were involved in elite society?

I guess I am just curious about the deeper meaning and motivations behind it, and how the royals would have been able to justify these policies. I am Jewish so it is something that I can't really wrap my head around, but I am also interested in a creative project involving this time period. Thanks in advance!