The lyrics are from 'Born in the USA' of course.

The question is very specific and this is my first time posting so I don't know if this is the proper way to do it.

Basically, I've been discussing with my family about this theme, they think Spain, independently of the Civil War, would have ended as another satelite communist state and would have become part of the Soviet Union, almost guaranteed. I say that the whole issue is very complex and should be left to historians (none of us have more knowledge than what we learned in school), and that, while with the civil war things get even more complex, I kinda doubt that the republic would have becomed communist in the case of there not being a war (I do reserve some doubt though). Most of their arguments are "they were totally russians by that point, their soldiers were socialist and the economy was swichting into a communist one, and everyone who wasn't with them were started to being assassinated" and they say they were actually stopped by the nationalistic forces, whose main point was that they were totally trying to prevent communism in Spain. What's your take on it, and is there any books on the issue I could read to know more?

Hello :)

I am a history MA student writing a research paper on the depiction of women in early 19th century France. I am trying to prove that in France at this time poorer / less educated women were idolized more than rich / noble / educated women.

​

Napoleon wrote in an 1807 letter about founding a girl's school at Ecouen --

"These girls should be considered as though they belonged to families who, in the provinces, have between fifteen to eighteen thousand livres annual income and who would bring to their husbands no more than twelve to fifteen thousand livres, and should be treated accordingly."

Bonaparte, Napoleon. "Letter on Ecouen." Women, the Family, and Freedom; The Debate in Documents. Vol. 1. 1750-1880. Ed. Susan Bell & Karen Offen. Stanford University Press, 1983. 94-96.

​

To me, this sounds like a bourgeois family, but I have no idea if this level of income would qualify as a petit bourgeois or a rather wealthy family.

​

Help please!

Thank you!

Were there any members of the French government who saw the potential for unrest in the 13 colonies to weaken Great Britain, and might have in anyway supported or influenced Patriot factions prior to the declaration of independence? (Similar to how popular imagination thinks about how the KGB/CIA would support political factions in other countries during the Cold War)

If the unmarried only daughter of a high noble like a Duke were to inherit her father's title upon his death (Agnatic-Cognatic succession), and I, the son of a lesser noble, were to marry her; would I henceforth gain the title of Duke myself and all the powers that affords? Or, would my wife maintain the power, as she was the one who originally inherited the title from her father?

Peter H. Wilson writes in "The Thiry Years War: Europe's Tragedy," that, as a result of threats of mutiny, the Dutch payment of soldiers increased substantially before upper-limits to pay were enforced. He lists the payment of Dutch infantrymen as 4 florins per month year-round after 1530. According to the currency listing, that equals about 28.24 German florins a year, or about the value of grain required to feed 3 people for an entire year.

Furthermore, he writes that it had been "customary to give [soldiers] one or more additional month's pay as a recruitment bounty and as a bonus upon discharge."

Now, the author's currency guide seems to be going off the value of the Dutch and German florins in the year 1618 while the aforementioned payments were in 1530. Is that as much money as it sounds? I understand that for a soldier with a wife and child, enough money to feed three people in grain is probably cutting it close, but for a young soldier with no roots to speak of, that seems like a pretty solid payday. Is my conception of this correct?

During the u-boat peril (Battle of the Atlantic), the German navy never succeeded in strangling the import of goods to the UK and thereby forcing their surrender. However, Churchill remembered the u-boat peril as the only thing, which really frightened him during the war. Did the Germans really get that close to forcing Churchill out of the war, or was this just an illusion caused by the psychological effect of the war?

Edit: I’m aware of the significance of the battle itself. I’m interested in the role of the uboat, and how their actual damages live up to reputation.

For civilization that just dissappeared such as Aztec, where did the people go?

Hey everyone,

I'm wondering where does the West has this tradition of seeing certain discipline as unteachable. For instance, creative writing. This is one of the many disciplines. However, there are other skills like "social skills" with either you are born with it or you are not. I have seen this multiple times in America with lots of things. However, let's focus on creative writing for this discussion.

I think there's a 'popular understanding" that creative writing can't be taught and writing is not a "skill" in itself but rather some gifted people write through inspiration. Only recently in 1970's there's an inversion and the rise of creative writing programs. Even tend there's a backlash and mockery around the concept of teaching creative writing.

I am a Black American with the expected recent admixture of West/East African and Western European ancestry, but I also have some more distant South Asian ancestry (estimated to be most recently from about the 1700s) and a maternal haplogroup originating and most commonly found in Bangladesh/Nepal/Myanmar. Of course, there is the possibility that the ancestry came by way of my European ancestors mixing with South Asian people during early colonization there, but I haven't found any evidence of non-Black female ancestors in my family, so I was wondering if it were possible that a South Asian ancestor migrated to Africa and her descendants were later enslaved and sent to the Americas?

I was speaking with a friend and realised that most of what we knew about "Is suicide ethical" comes from a religious POV. Is there any sources that discussed it from a wider POV?

I heard nazis had certain appearance tests for identifying Jews from the colours of they’re eyes to the shape of there ear lobes what would happen if I matched these specifications but wasn’t Jewish? Would I have to prove I wasn’t jewish and how would that work?

Also if I had a few Jewish features but could prove I wasn’t Jewish and be fine would it be different if I looked Jewish to the point I looked like a racist renditioning of a Jew or would I still be seen as racially impure or just assumed Jewish.

Are there any examples of non Jewish people being accused of being Jewish and what happened?

After attempting to make sense of the entire issue myself, I can no longer decide what I believe in the topic here. Between religious alliances and political alliances this appears to be a complex situation on all ends. Why would Catherine was Coligny dead after marrying her daughter to a Huguenot king, and then sanctioning one of her opponents to lead a massacre of Hugenots?

I'm especially interested in what people thought of the term in the early Republican period and during the Cultural Revolution and whether class-based connotations persisted, and/or when the perception changed towards the modern one (i.e. "classy" rather than literally of a high social class).

What led up to it?

How effective was the ban? (I know Churchill illegally duelled in University, I don't know how common that was).

As far as I recall, syphilis was brought over as part of the Columbian Exchange. What was the reaction to it in Europe?