For instance, did Stalin ever give the Georgian SSR any special treatment? Did Khrushchev give the Ukrainian SSR anything? If this type of occurrence took place, what might it look like?

As far as I'm aware, the current consensus is that the Nazi nuclear program was in its infancy, and that the Nazi regime wasn't committed to developing an atomic bomb. But how worried were the allies about Germany's ability to create such a weapon? Did they know how far along the Nazi's nuclear research was?

Why is the term "Conquistador" used in English history texts? All I've been able to find so far is that it's first use was in 1830, but not who started using it or why it has stuck. Is there any other distinguishing characteristic that separates the Conquistadors from other leaders of colonization efforts? More of a military focus, maybe?

The 19th century is mostly known for the forced relocation and incarceration of Native American peoples into reservations out west; did these groups have any diplomatic representatives in Washington, D.C. to argue on their behalf?

I'm studying history at degree level, and have been assigned Johan Huizinga's The Autumn of the Middle Ages, but I don't understand a word of what he's saying!

It's written in a way that I simply can't comprehend, and am struggling to unpack his actual arguments, instead getting bogged down by his style of writing.

If anyone could help me out by shedding some light on what Huizinga is trying to argue throughout this book, I would really appreciate it!

Thanks.

I grew in Zambia and I personally love that country, so I am curious, what are some good historical books to read that show and talk about Zambian history? I would love to read up more on my home country. I am an Italian who grew up in Zambia but I still identify a lot with the Zambian culture. I would really appreciate any help that you can give.

I was looking at a copy of my great grandparents' wedding menu from the early 1900s (I think it was in 1903) and noticed that, listed with the desserts, they had "fruits", "bon bons", and "mottoes". Now, I tried looking up if mottoes were an actual dessert but can't find anything more than mottoes (i.e. phrases) about desserts.

Was this an actual dessert that I just can't find any reference to? Or is there a tradition of handing out phrases at weddings to the guests?

Hi I’m an undergrad history student and I have a strange question. After going over some older documents on Darwin’s theory of evolution one scientist referred to it as the Mohhamadean theory of Evolution. What does Islam or Mohammed have to do with Darwin?

I always wondered if in a real hard communist regime like CCCP there was some form of advertising for a product or another even if there wasn't any form of private goods and competition. Or if advertising is something just proper to the capitalist world we live in.

Turkey was courted by both Germany and the Allies but never entered World War 2. I seem to remember that they had some strategic importance (oil?). Why did they want to stay neutral, and more importantly why did Germany not just invade them?

Not sure if this is the right place to be asking this question, and if it’s not allowed then the mods should notify me to remove it, but anyway here it goes.

I collect military uniforms and gear, and one of my sets I’ve found confuses me to say the least, i can not find any sources as to what type this is, Its a soviet Cold War Era field uniform and has black collar tabs with a golden aviation cress on the collar tabs as well. (which could mean technical Corps/Engineer, in aviation?) it did not come with epaulets.

I understand the branch in which it was in but the type of uniform has be puzzled, the Tunics buttons on the front are hidden when buttoned up, only has two pockets, one on each of the upper torso, the pants have two cargo like pockets on the front and smaller ones on the back, all is a sand-tone color and made from a cotton material.

Again, if this isn’t the right place to ask this sort of question, then I would be more than happy to have this question redirected towards a different sub, any help is appreciated.

I am watching the new film ‘The King’ on Netflix. In it is the Battle of Agincourt, where English and French knights are fighting. If I was there, I would be having a very hard time telling who was on my side due to the similarities in appearance. Minor differences would be impossible to depict during the heat of battle, so killing friends instead of foes must have happened all the time.

Ok, so the attempts at Christian reconquest of Muslim lands have succeeded in Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Crete, Malta and Sicily, but failed in Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. The Crusades seemed like it would inevitably drive the Muslims out of the Holy Land for good. And yet, it would prove unsuccessful and the Siege of Acre marked the failure of the Crusades. Anyways, I was wondering, why did the Crusades fail where the Reconquista succeeded? Why were the Moors unable to reclaim Al-Andalus from the Iberian Christians while the Ayyubids and Mamluks were able to reclaim Jerusalem, Acre, Tripoli and Antioch (now Antakya) from the Crusaders?

[deleted]

I was taking a look at one of my favorite books, Around the World in Eighty Days, and noticed that when described the stoical Fogg at the beginning, the book notes that he owned no books. It's listed right there alongside things like "has no friends" and "performs the same daily routine without fail."

I remembered how, when reading The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, during the end part when (spoiler I guess?) |Jekyll locks himself in a room trying to cure himself|, Poole, the butler, remarks that he "does not read." I remember that quote exactly.

These books were published in 1873 and 1886, respectively. During this time period in England, was reading seen as a regular activity (for a forced analogy, how would it compare to things like watching television/using social media today)?

I have a historiographic research task that relates to 'how history is constructed' and 'the role of the historian'. I've been doing research into an area that interests me: the historiography of Josip Broz Tito, and have found varying views from historians of various backgrounds - that he's a tyrant, benevolent, or somewhere in between, with some emphasising the importance of his split from Stalin, while others celebrate him as an antifacist, and many demonstrate his brutality. However, I've been unable to find consistent factors that influence a historian's reasoning for depicting Tito in the light they so choose. I was wondering if anyone knew a consistent reason that dictates a historian's POV with regard to Tito, if there is one. Are there any prominent Tito historians that are worth looking at? Are there any relevant historiographic concepts I should research?

Thanks!

Hello. I am rereading Hiroshima and early in the book the author states that the residents of the city had heard rumors that the "Americans were saving something special for the city", did the Japanese know anything at all of Atomic weaponry in August 1945? If they did, were they aware of it's destructive potential and that the Americans had tested bombs and were close to using them?

Hi all,

Im asking this question due to some family links. Namely that my paternal grandfather helped develop RADAR during WW2.

The story I've heard is that, upon becoming 18 in 1938/39 he was pushed into studying Physics, rather than his preferred choice which was history, at either Oxford or Cambridge.

His degree was massively compressed, it took 18 months to complete, and then he was sent to basic training. Following this he was researching radar, according to family legend, under a shoe factory in Oldham, near Manchester.

So my question is how we're decisions like this made? Who ordered what and where could I look to find out more?

Thanks!

It is something that has struck me as odd.

I know that on occasion they could be seen wearing their kingdoms colours or flag, yet they are always shown as knowing who is who when this identifier is not present, despite the chaos of Hundreads of men wearing near identical armour constantly moving like a living object.

In battle, I'd imagine that killing your own countrymen by accident must have occurred often in those situations without identification.

Was it an inevitably that a new province would have eventually been formed? Or did Nunavut only come to exist because of specific pressure applied by activists?

Similarly, was specific activism responsible for the naming of the province and renaming of its capital city?

Hi there!

I’m a mexican college student and I have a.. terminological doubt, I think. I’ve been lurking on this subreddit for quite a while, and found kinda strange that that what we sometimes call “Teoría de la Historia”, or theoretical history/theory of history (I think it’s what you call it) it’s often times mentioned here as philosophy of history, or the stuff that takes care of the theoretical, methodological and epistemological aspect of history. For example, the discussion around the narrative aspect of history or the epistemology of historical knowledge, or Hayden White being regarded as a “philosopher of history” instead of a theoretical, for saying something.

I know the distinction Walsh makes between speculative and critical philosophy of history, and in class we established that critical philosophy of history and theoretical history are intimately linked so... what is really the distinction between both of them?, what do you call theoretical history?, what makes the difference between those for you?, what should I read if I'm interested in theory and philosophy of history?