I've been reading a lot about the intent and manifestation of constructivist art and it seems like it featured a lot of abstract concepts as a reaction to the more imperial and middle class focused aesthetics of the empire. On the other hand, most of the soviet folk music I've heard either comes in the form of grand Alexandrov Ensemble-esque almost imperial choirs, or folk easily reminiscent of the deryevnya rural folk ballads of the peasantry. Was purposeful abstraction or norm subversion ever attempted in the sphere of music?

I understand how Gold can be used as currency because it’s not as easy to acquire or refine.

But cowrie shells were used a currency. Like...why not just go to the beach and get more shells? How is an economy built upon that?

I was just wondering since Spain used to find and conquer lands to expand their territory.

Given Operation Paperclip, the scramble for German scientists after the war, and the aid of German scientists in developing the atomic bomb, it seems as if German scientists were much more technologically and intellectually advanced than American, English, or Russian scientists. If I'm not completely off base about this, why is there such a discrepancy?

I have rough ideas why but I’ve never looked deeply enough to get an in depth look.

I’d like to know is historians see this book as accurate or as a useful source for learning about Maoist China.

There has been a fair amount of debate about Winston Churchill, and I'm wondering if there's any serious claims against him that are true. Some accuse him off genocide in India, of being horribly racist, etc. Others say that he was not responsible for the famine in India and that his other opinions were unremarkable for the time.

So I'm wondering: is there a strong case to be made against him or is this poor historical interpretation?

I came across one person on the internet who denied that the Democratic and Republican parties had ever switched political platforms. In response, I cited the passing of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 (Intended to limit the growth of monopolies, and was introduced by a Republican senator and signed into law by a Republican president) as evidence that the Republican party was not always pro-small government. What are some other examples I could have used? Could you give me some instances of the Democratic or Republican doing something (passing a bill, supporting an action) that they would not have supported nowadays? I'm honestly quite curious.

After Luigi Cadorna is largely now considered a brutal chief of staff, with his introduction of decimation being frequently sited, however Armando Diaz is not usually commented on, which begs the question, was he generally considered competent? Was he considered more effective? Did he remove some of Cadorna's brutal policies, and did he re-promote some of those who were dismissed or demoted under Cadorna's leadership

I was wondering if anyone could direct me to more information on the US 67th field artillery? My grandfather fought in that section of the US forces during World War II and I know virtually nothing about what he did, if possible.

During the Cold War, the US proposed a theory that if one country fell to communism, neighboring countries would follow suit. Was this ever proven in the real world, or just an excuse for US imperialism that’s still prevalent long after the Cold War ended.

I apologize if this is the wrong forum, but I’ve recently become fascinated with sub-roman Britain, and am curious if anyone can recommend the top scholars on the field.

What did the German destroyer fleet do after Operation Weserübung, specifically the naval battle around Narvik, which saw the HMS Warspite along with Royal Navy support annihilate 10 Kriegsmarine destroyers without a single loss as far as I remember.

They weren't on convoy escort duty like Britain's destroyers that they bought/leased from the United States?

Did they just sit at port, since there were no massive "Battle of the Jutland"-like battles in the North sea in WW2 nor did the Kriegsmarine surface warships operate in the Mediterranean or the Pacific for Battlefleet action like Cape Matapan, Guadacanal, Midway or Leyte Gulf, in which all major vessels types fought each other.

In movies, super buff and lean actors usually play ancient soldiers. However today, these actors often follow strict science based workout routines and diets. Before modern nutritional and exercise studies, did ancient soldiers look anything like the jacked actors who play them? When did the style of people beginning to look more lean and jacked begin?

The history of the middle-east seems to be very complicated and while I was trying to do some reading on Armenians and Kurds I got very confused since it seems that they are very mixed up so I am looking for help to understand the dynamics in the Eastern Anotolia and Mesopotamia around the time the Turks started to move towards west.

For context, I've heard that the Japanese and Chinese still are bitter over how the Japanese government still respects the Japanese soldiers who died in WW2, despite being responsible for atrocities on a comparable level to what the Nazi's did (which led me to assume that cold-war era Japan may also have been more sympathetic to Nazi's as a whole), but I'm also under the impression that the relationship between the 1940's Japan and Germany was a bit nuanced to say the least, and that there's a huge difference between supporting your own country despite atrocities and supporting another allied country despite atrocities.

While watching the show, I thought it was humorously ridiculous to have the Nazi's ending up on the side of the "good guys", but looking back I realized that this wasn't too far removed time-wise from WW2, and the writer had grown up in 1960's Japan. Which had me thinking that there might be a possibility that this wasn't supposed to be as ridiculous as it seems now.

(I don't think that the writer is even remotely a nazi sympathizer, but thinking about how this would have gone over at the time is what prompted my question)

I see a lot of conflicting viewpoints on Sparta's military strength now. Most things I see online now are of the opinion that they were overrated and simply had very effective propaganda. A class I took with a professor who specialized in ancient Sparta seemed convinced that they in fact backed up their reputation with results all the way from the 2nd Messenian War to the start of the Theban Wars, when their citizen population was no longer large enough to support wars like they had.

Specifically, this passage from Wikipedia is brought up.

On 8 October 1912, during the First Balkan War, Lemnos became part of Greece. The Greek navy under Rear Admiral Pavlos Kountouriotis took it over without any casualties from the occupying Turkish Ottoman garrison, who were returned to Anatolia. Peter Charanis, born on the island in 1908 and later a professor of Byzantine history at Rutgers University recounts when the island was occupied and Greek soldiers were sent to the villages and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ a soldier retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans." Thus was the most ancient national identity in all of history, preserved in isolation, finally absorbed and ended.

​

I've found plenty of primary and secondary sources on desertion and the San Patricios during the Mexican-American War, and I know that in reality, the deserters were not all Irish and not all Catholic. But the greater perception at the time seems to have been that they were mostly Irish Catholics, particularly within the San Patricios. Most of the memoirs from soldiers and books published in 19th century from on both sides talk about the Irish Catholic deserters.

I'm having more difficulty finding sources on nativism and the Know Nothing movement during and after the war. Newspapers played a large role in the public perception of the war back in the US, but there are only a few newspapers that have been scanned or otherwise uploaded online. There would have been some articles on the San Patricios and other deserters in the American Star, the American Republic, or other newspapers. I did find a blurb in a nativist 1856 Almanac from nearly ten years after the court martials that still talked about the Irish Deserters and John Riley, so I suspect there is more discussion to be found on the Mexican War. Due to the COVID closures, my access to sources is more limited. It seems as if I would need to visit the physical archives for certain sources, and most of them are closed.

I feel like I've hit a wall in my research, so I'm looking for other sources to either work towards or counter my line of inquiry. If anyone has some ideas to contribute to nativism and the Mexican-American War, I would appreciate additional insight.