In the book, “A War to Be Won: Fighting the Second World War”, by Murray and Millett, I came across an argument that states that although the Nazis portrayed the Soviets as Communist brutes, the Nazis could have portrayed the Soviet proletariat as a damsel that needs saving against an oppressive government. This would be in the hopes that the Soviet proletariat would aid the German Army against its attack against the Soviet Union. However I’m very skeptical about this outcome, and, frankly, I do not think it would have crossed the German High Command’s minds at all, since it could possibly complicate their military strategies.

When doing some family research I came across an elderly relative who was born, reared and lived her entire life in London being listed in Kelly's directory as being in Birmingham in 1940. It's not the most common name, so while it's possibly just a coincidence, I am trying to think of reasons why she would have been out of London and I know children were evacuated but I was wondering if adults were as well.

People have a certain idea of how government should work, but from the outside we often don't see the real frictions that drive problems on the inside.

What are the best books that show how political dynamics really work?

To take just one example: how decisions in bureaucracies are limited by miscommunication, disorganization, poor record-keeping and other varieties of incompetence that are not typically thought of affect policy... how these issues affect the ability of political leaders to change things for the better.

Or how, in foreign relations, seemingly compassionate moves by one force may provoke counter-moves by other powers in the region... counterintuitively making the problem worse.

That sort of thing...

It is mentioned often about diseases from the Old World wrecking the populace of Native Americans at the time of colonization. My question is: Were there similar instances of diseases from the New World that had the same effect on Europeans? Why or why not?

I remember hearing about diseases such as syphilis being contracted, but that didn't seem to destroy the settlers like small pox did to the Natives.

I know ships would often hoard each other before cannons were used but were other weapons used often to engage in ship to ship combat?

In school we are told that in 1453 the Ottoman turks took the city of Constantinople from the dying Byzantine Empire, preventing Europe from trading throuh the Silk Road and thus causing Cristopher Columbus to persuade the kings of Castille to fund an expedition to reach the Far East through the Atlantic Ocean.

However, was the taking of Constantinople really important to kickstart the Age of Discovery, especially considering Portugal had already begun circumnavigating around Africa? Moreover, how was Constantinople important at all if by 1453 the Turks already controlled plenty of territory around it, in the Balkans and Anatolia? And even if the city was important at all, why would the Turks prevent Europe from trading through their lands, considering how immensely lucrative that would have been for them?

So this is my question: was the fall of Constantinople relevant in any way to the discovery of America?

[deleted]

Mainly curious about the development of armor from chain mail hauberks to fully articulated suits of plate. Was any one city or region known for advancing the field, through articulated joints, or superior alloys, or whatever? The development of lamellar armors fits into this question as well.

Related to this question, I understand the greatsword was developed to cut the heads off of opposing pike formations. German soldiers assigned to this front-line duty were called dopplesodner and given double pay. What sort of armor would these soldiers be wearing, assuming their commanders could afford the most practical armor available?

I'm aware Cromwell and other generals had strong personal beliefs, but was that more important to them than secular beliefs like liberty and parliamentary sovereignty? Were some beliefs (Arminian/Lutheran/Episcopalian etc) more associated with certain groups, like the Cavaliers, the Levellers, the Diggers etc) and did this inform the philosophy of their movements more than temporal affairs? Did these beliefs go all the way down from Cromwell to the common soldiery?

As a follow up question, if this was due to a lightning threat, when did battles start to wage on during thunderstorms? Was it the removal of gunpowder that allow soldiers to continue the fight? thunderstorm during the battle that cause all fighting to stop for an hour. During this downtime, the Patriots and Loyalists were able to regroup some. After the storm passed, fighting resumed. Was this because of lightning and the risk holding a metal musket? Was it because gunpowder became unusable during rainstorms? Was it more of a chivalrous thing? And why didn't the Indians continue to fight with their hatchets?

As a follow up question, if this was due to a lightning threat, when did battles start to wage on during thunderstoms? Was it the removal of gunpowder that allow soldiers to continue the fight?

Thank you.

I’m trying to compare post WWII Nazi families to the US South’s Confederate families. Many US families still defend their ancestors actions to this day. On the other hand, I often see a lot of posts from Germans talking about how their country did a lot of work to educate their citizens in how wrong the Nazi party and their actions were. I wonder what the US could’ve done differently to end up with a Southern population that better recognized the atrocities of the Confederacy.

(Being lazy, I'm just going to go with the Wikipedia definition): Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. 

In another thread on this sub about Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, it was pointed out that the purges, mass- killings and dying (because of famine, disease, etc.) can not be classified as genocide (taking the definition from above), which makes sense to me as they surely wouldn't want to wipe out Khmer people as a whole. However, in public it is usually being labelled as genocide, even by some historians (correct me if I'm wrong).

I am sure there are other controversial examples like that (take the Armenian genocide e.g., but certainly there are many more?).

How clearly is genocide defined and to what extent are historians on the same page about genocide? Which examples continually are a matter of controversy among historians? Is the term in general used too often, even by historians?

Thanks.

You very rarely will see anyone smiling in older photographs. When, why, and how did we go from nobody smiling in photographs, to where its become common?

Thank you for your time, I hope I did this correctly!

If so, what removed the restriction?