The utility of aircraft was proved in the Great War, yet by 1939 the Luftwaffe far outclassed its opponents.

This seemed like the last really one-sided war between European powers. In fact, it seems like one of the last major really one-sided wars that wasn't a colonial war. (Some people might say Persian Gulf/Iraq but the problem there isn't winning the war. It's keeping the peace.). So why was the Franco-Prussian war so one-sided? France lost almost all the battles I think. And they lost the war too. Why? How could a Western European army lose almost all the battles? Was France really that weak back then?

Hey all. Does anyone know of a good English language source that goes into detail on the Battle of Route Coloniale 4 during the First Indochina War? A column of 6,000 French troops took nearly 100% casualties from 30,000 Viet Minh regulars, and I can't find anything.

Thanks in advance.

It's been 231 years since the US Constitution was ratified, but many people today believe that the Founding Fathers were some sort of perfect beings that could forsee modern times and could do no wrong.

Whenever a discussion about the Constitution or Bill of Rights comes up, it's rarely about how we interpret it and is frequently about what we think the Founding Fathers meant by their words.

When new laws relating to modern concepts or technologies arise, there's always the question, "What would the Founding Fathers do if they were alive today?"

I'm curious as to whether Americans looked at the FFs like that from the very start, or whether it was at some later date that they started worrying excessively about what a group of dead men would think about things. Either way, what in history lead to this widespread belief?

What were these “medieval” technologies?

I was under the impression that the Ottomans would have many people to work on their lands and other projects due to having a slave based society. Why was there scarcity of labor? Also what did capital poor entail?

So I'm reading Paul Preston's The Spanish Holocaust and it covers the right winger's conspiracy theorizing around the usual supects of Bolsheviks/Jews and Freemasons and it occured to me that Freemasons seem to have got out of the whole undermining nation-states business. The last vaguely masonic association I recall was when Roberto Calvi turned up hanging under Blackfriars Bridge, although others may have just passed me by I suppose. When did they lose their sinister undertone?

Hello,

I am a big history buff, and I have a question concerning Japan after World War Two:

In Germany, there was a denazification process that the allied powers implemented. Was there an equivalent program like the one in Germany, in Japan? I often hear about how Japan has been dealing with historical revisionism, and many Japanese aren’t taught about the war in a correct way. My question is, were the Japanese people after the war told about the war crimes they committed, and shown what had happened?

I know that Japan was different from Germany in that Japan was able to keep its monarch.

From what I understand, before the First Crusade, Medieval Europe was quite a peaceful place for Jews. More precisely, there weren't any organised pogrom since the 800's. Jews were mostly under the protection of the Church. But with the First Crusade, especially the "Popular Crusades", pogrom against Jews started in Western Europe.

What were the lasting consequences of the Crusade for the Jewish population of Europe ?

Was it because tanks and armored vehicles were much more developed than before. Was artillery more accurate as well as aircrafts and bombers? I feel like it's mostly the tank bit but I'm just curious if there are other big factors.

America's Baby Boom is an important part of American history, but I haven't heard about similar phenomena happening in other countries. Was the Baby Boom a uniquely American event, or is this simply a case of an American-centered education? In particular, I'm curious about China and the Soviet Union, and how long it took them to return to pre-war population levels.

If a person was born during the Insular Gov't of the Philippines under the United States (1901-1935) does that mean that the person is technically a US citizen?

Because of their uniqueness as an ethnic group were they considered Germans, Slavs, or something different? Were there any moves to bring them into the Empire away from Austro-Hungary?

ty

For example, if she was married or unmarried, if the man was her boyfriend or another man, if he was a villager or a stranger, etc.