As a prelude to WW2 Hitler annexed Austria and Czechia. This was accomplished without bloodshed, so it was a great strategic victory for the Nazis. In later affairs they were not so lucky however and both war against Poland and later against France cost them substantial losses in men and materials. To add to the wound the undeground forces in occupied countries were constantly harassing and sabotaging them. On the 'bright' side the Nazis could enforce local peoples to work for them and there was plenty of looting too. However it required maintaining a strong occupying force to keep the population in check, a force that could've been used on the warfront otherwise. So here comes my question: did the gains overcome the losses?

​

I know that some of Hitlers conquests were carried for strategic/political reasons and did not really help in terms of economics, such as the Balkans or Norway because of their remoteness, rural character and poverty mostly. On the other hand some wealthier countries offered little resistance (Denmark, Benelux countries) and were for sure a nice addition for the Germans. But what about the somewhat developed Poland (at least the west part, especially upper Silesia) and rich France - countries that had something to offer economically but also the ones that resisted greatly? Would the war with them be viable for Hitler for economic reasons only if nothing else?

If you have any first hand source descriptions, that would also be great!

How did this one particular family rise above everyone else? Where did their money come from? Their power?

An almost rondel dagger with a bodkin-style point, so not slashing at all. Just thrusting.

Hey guys,

I am from germany and I am in the 10th grade so sorry for my bad english. I have to do a presentation about the "Society in the USA while the Vietnam War" for my graduation. So my question to you guys is how the behavior of the american (USA) population was (in that time). So what was the differences between Black-White, City-Land, Young-Old, Poor-Rich, South-North and so on. I watched some movies and have some grounding e.g. there were different zones in cinemas for black and white but I'm asking here because I want to ask you something more about things like that or the free riders. I think if you were born and raised in the USA you know much more about things like that. It's pretty hard to find informations about that topic in the internet. I just watched some movies like "The Butler" to get these informations but they're movies and I don't think everything what happened in the movies happened in real life. My idea to get as much informations as I can was asking contemporary witness but I don't know people who are living in the USA so I thought I could ask here. I'm searching for generally facts but also for some background informations.

A quick search on Wikipedia suggests that the concept of popular sovereignty was formalized in the 17th century, but if not by something similar to popular sovereignty, how did the Senate justify its own rule? Senators were at least nominally elected, so I'm guessing they didn't work off just divine right.

Napoleon's famous for his speed, but what would it be like for someone actually doing the marching? Am I jogging across Europe with a gun in my hand and pack on my back, or does it not feel fast to me at all?

Never did America experience a coup, a dictatorship (in the sense of a strongman rulling against the wishes of the voting citizens) and only once did it experience a civil war. Countries like Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico, Peru and to a lesser extant Brazil (only because it was a monarchy in the 19th century) all went through those hazards much more even before the Cold War. Why is that so? I know the US became a developed country earlier, but even before it started inustrializing it was already a stable reoublic. So why?

-liberation movement in the early sixties help confirm this?

In the movie 1917, two soldiers are tasked with delivering a message calling off an attack doomed to fail that would cost the lives of 1,600 men, soon after the German retreat to the Hindenburg Line during Operation Alberich in 1917. A New York’s times writer said that the plot was extremely unrealistic because the high command sent hundreds of thousands of their young men to die, and that in reality the scale of the casualties was such that the potential loss of 1,600 men would not have excited the response portrayed.

Is this a fair criticism? Would the British really have seen the loss of 1,600 insignificant and not worth saving?

I've been learning about Middle Eastern history and when I got to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, I'm kinda lost.

Most revolutions happen when the society is discontent with how the masses are treated and typically want a more progressive society along with other reforms. Iran went the opposite way as far as I can tell and I cant understand why.

They seemed to be in decent standing in terms of prosperity, and were progressing with the rest of the world. Is that mostly propaganda and the country was actually in a state of unrest? Were the masses actually suffering far more than what history taught?

I keep reading articles and seeing documentaries that use expressions like "Rome was much more diverse than we thought". I've seen the same applied to Athens and London. Now, I know I am not a degreed historian, but I kind of find those statements to be a bit strange, and in many ways a little disingenuous considering the international reach those cities enjoyed. Rome made a habit of incorporating the culture of conquered foes into their own. London was a port city with international trade.

Does the idea of diversity really surprise people so much, or is the emphasis on these things reflect our current political landscape more than the reality of times?

Hello to anyone reading this. I've been asking myself this question for quite some time at this point and decided this would be an appropriate place to ask.

My question is: did the Gallic armies that opposed Caesar under Vercingetorix have any military training, other than the nobles and their personal retainers? I've heard some eh-reliable sources, mainly blogs and video games, say tribal militias were trained to some extent to follow the army in war, but I can't actually find any reliable bibliography backing this up, neither in English nor in French. Were Gallic tribal warriors really just barbarians with no training whatsoever who had absolutely nothing on the Roman war machine? Were the Gauls really that underdeveloped in terms of military organization?

Compared to their contemporaries what set them apart?

The coins should most of the times have more value than the material they are made from, as far as i know. So buying raw materials and creating coins should seem to be a good way to generate profit in medieval times and before. So what stopped the people in doing so?