I'm aware of methamphetamine's history in WWII, but there it was being produced on an industrial scale, with presumably fewer jerry-rigged components. Wikipedia also informs me that methamphetamine use in America became more popular in the 1980s, but based on the statement that the drug was coming from manufacturers in Mexico, I assume that it was also being produced on a more industrial scale.

I was wondering when improvised synthesis of methamphetamine became more widespread. More specifically, I'm wondering when the whole "guy in a trailer using road flares for red phosphorus" style of production surfaced in America. It seems kinda odd to me that knowledge of a series of reactions that would require a fairly in-depth knowledge of chemistry would make its way into areas of the country that are pretty impoverished.

I've seen comments where people claim that kulaks during the Holodomor "deserved it" or "had it coming", usually saying it was because kulaks hoarded grain and possibly destroyed it rather than turn it over for collectivization. Is such a claim rooted in truth? Were there documented cases of kulaks hoarding or burning grain that were later applied to kulaks as a whole? Was the claim ever officially propagated by the Soviet government or did it originate from another source?

I'm referring to kulaks in terms of both the original definition (private citizens who gained large amounts of farmland during Stolypin's reforms) and the later expansion of the definition to include slightly-wealthier farmers and people who resisted (in Robert Conquest's words, any peasant farmers "with a couple of cows or five or six acres more than their neighbors").

I found a similar question on this subreddit, but it didn't have any replies.

How did all these cities like Genoa, Milan, Venice and Florence, to name just a few, gain and preserve their independence? How was it possible for them when most other population centers across Europe couldn't (at least to that extent), and the general trend seems to have gone toward a certain amount of centralization? Also, how did their political structures develop, and why were they so different from the rest of the continent? And lastly, what changes ultimately lead to the loss of their independence (and why did Venice hold out longer than most of the others)?

Xenophon says that no one knows who did it, so it is clear it was a human hand, and there is no indication this was an accident, so did he order it?

During the Medieval period, blades tapered significantly in response to development of mail and full plate armour, to be able to target joints and with such narrow blades, break links of mail when thrusting into such areas. However, in the civilian context the need for a narrow and stiff blade seems unnecessary as both parties would be unarmoured. The hand protection is nice but basket-hilted broadswords achieved the same protection and were able to cut and thrust well. Was it because people's clothing was difficult to cut through? Why did the rapier become so popular?

I was wondering if anyone can give me information on the Britons of Strathclyde? I honestly have never even heard of them until today. I did an ancestry DNA test and the surname of my birth father is sort of rare and even just googling the surname instantly will pull up a lot of info on the Britons of Strathclyde. Were they considered Vikings? I also read something about that they were some of the last people of the Roman Empire and proceeded to establish what we now know as Wales? I would like to know anything I can, and if there is any literature about them I could buy?

I am currently reading a memoir by Stuka ace Hans Ulrich Rudel and he notes that the soviet capacity to replace rearm was uncanny and even how dismayed he would be seeing new tank formations day after day despite his squadron destroying so many , so was soviet superiors in manpower and industry simply too great and OB was innately flawed because of this

It just seems illogical to me. France had a bunch of reasons to declare war on Germany in 1936: the hostile irredentist nature of Nazi Germany that threatned the French rule over Alsace-Lorraine, the refusal to continue paying the reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles and, most importantly, the remilitarization of the Rhineland. Not to mention that the german army was extremely unprepared to go to war in 1936. Maybe it is because of hindsight, but France (and Britain) just seem to have outright ignored Nazi Germany until the very last straw that was the invasion of Poland in 1939.

I know it's fairly recent history (only a little more than 20 years ago), but looking back, it seems peculiar that culturally, dinosaurs seemed to be all over the place. We're Back, Land Before Time, Jurassic Park, the tv show Dinosaurs. From the POV of a child in the 90s, it seemed like Dinosaurs were the biggest thing in pop culture, and then we all just sorta forgot about it.

I know that great archeological discoveries preceded the revivals of American interest in mummies or other historic periods, did something similar occur with dinosaurs around that time?

Taking information from answers on this sub, I understand an archer in the Edwardian phase of the war would have been paid 6d per day, compared to an average of a little over 5d a day if he stayed home and worked his skilled trade. It seems to me that by the time a man could afford to buy even some basic gear and go on campaign he could make just as much staying home, with less risk of death.

My first question is, am I fundamentally misunderstanding who made up the ranks of the semiprofessional, nontitled soldiers? Would they have been something of a leisure class, e.g. minor landlords or merchants and their dependents? But further, what was the financial incentive to going off to fight? Most of the chevauchee raids were burning poor people out of their homes so there couldn't have been much loot to be gained there; were they hoping for a battle so they could recover and resell some armor (only used once!) and weapons?

This isn't a trick question or a joke. I'm not referring to the well-known Beaver Wars of the 1600s, which were intertribal conflicts of about the same period.

I'm basing this on what I remember from an article 30 years ago. I thought an online search would be a cinch. But I can't find anything about it - either the article or its subject matter. Maybe someone who specializes in this might know.

The gist:

The native American populations believed in totem-like figures for each species. In their mythology, there was supposed to have been a general conference among the species that established that no one species would try to overtake the others. Subsequently, there was a massive population explosion of beavers and their structures somewhere in New England or Canada that led the native American peoples [no, I don't remember which tribe(s)] to claim that the beavers had breached the covenant and to declare war on the beavers. This happened maybe 10 or 20 years before Europeans began the fur trade and provided a strong noneconomic incentive for the native Americans to cooperate with the European fur trade when it showed up (again, can't say which Europeans, although I suppose it was the French).

It was an interesting article and an interesting theory but I can't find anything about it. I think that a lot of my difficulty is in the other intertribal Beaver Wars, which overwhelms the search with irrelevant responses. Or maybe the idea was simply discredited?

I was just curious about this and wondered if there had ever been any followup.

We all know that while it's Winter in the northern hemisphere, at least ouside of tropical areas, it'd be summer in the southern hemisphere past the tropics. Australians have Christmas on the beach while Americans are snowed in. Europeans have been doing trade by going below the Equator for a long time but when did they first really notice the change in season and how did they explain it before science knew?

After studying History at University, what career did you follow? Working in Academic institutes, Teaching, Librarians...? Did you find your degree to be of any use?

With more TV shows having different Spanish speaking cultures shown, such as "Modern Family's" Gloria and Manny from Columbia and the entire family from Netflix's "One Day at a Time" is from Cuba, I have started to notice similarities in their traditions and culture. They all have Quinceañera's, they all speak Spanish, very family oriented, eat some similar foods, hyper masculinity and more, yet they're quite far from one another. So how did this end up happening?

Hi, I have been digging through records and found some Russian cities listed that seem to no longer exist. I can't find anything about them and I'm hoping a historian can tell me where they were located. The records are ancestral documents and refer to having lived in these cities in the last 100-150 years.

Valshavca or Valshanca, Russia (referenced existing in 1866)

Koplitzy, Russia (referenced existing in 1863)

Yankowky, Russia (sp? difficult to read the handwriting) (referenced existing in 1891)

These are most likely not in current day Russia but in modern day Lithuania, Ukraine, Moldova, or Romania. Any help is greatly appreciated, I'm trying to help an aging grandparent find where his family came from. Thanks.

According to Wikipedia:

Service à la russe (French, "service in the Russian style") is a manner of dining that involves courses being brought to the table sequentially. It contrasts with service à la française ("service in the French style") in which all the food is brought out at once, in an impressive display. Russian Ambassador Alexander Kurakin is credited with bringing service à la russe to France in the early 19th century. It later caught on in England and is now the style in which most modern Western restaurants serve food (with some significant modifications).

I understand service à la russe and how it got spread outside Russia, but how did it originate in Russia? Does it have something to do with Russia's weather, geography, or customs?

I'm sorry for the possibly vague and misleading title, if it was.

My exact question, in expanded form, is: Considering the well known and largely agreed upon fact that most european indentured servants that were sent to the "new world" were treated as abhorrently as African slaves were on plantations, I am wondering whether or not both African Slaves and European indentured servants also had to endure the same inhuman arrangements during the long voyage across the Atlantic.

I tried multiple inquiries into google on the matter and I cannot fine any definite, creditable source saying anything for certain at all on either end of the matter. Absolutely nothing about the shipping conditions of 16th-19th century European indentured servants

Basically, did indentured servants get taken to the Americas in the same slave ships that African slaves did?

There was a short mini-narrative chapter in the American Gods novel describing this fictional mid-17th-18th century northern european character's experience as an indentured servant having to endure the same sardine-coffin-like quarters on board a slave ship during their atlantic crossing that most African slaves did.

I've heard, from the voices of less than academically accreditable sources, that it was a common practice for indentured servants to actually be intentionally overworked and under-provisioned compared to life-long African slaves in order to extract the maximum amount of economic net-gain for the indentured servant's master per unit. Apparently this very frequently resulted in the death of the indentured servant before they reached the end of their indentured servitude period.

BUT I can't produce sources for that so I'd really like some more academically accredible opinions on the matter, with sources cited preferably.

Thanks

The palate is "the roof of the mouth separating the mouth from the nasal cavity". Yet it is used to describe taste when of course we know the tongue is responsible. I came across a small note on its etymology that there was formerly a mistaken notion that the palate was the source of taste.

I was wondering where this mistaken belief came from. Also perhaps any relevant beliefs, myths, or events related to this notion.