I've heard the argument that the two World Wars could be read, usefully, as merely a second Thirty Years' War. Is this thesis associated with anyone and how does it hold up?

I realize my question could be far more specific, but I'm looking for some broad learning here. Other related questions I would have are:

How much did soldiers have to conserve their ammo?

Are there any documented cases of soldiers running out of ammo, and how did they cope?

I've only recently begun to delve into these wars after realizing I had a gaping hole in my knowledge of a fascinating topic, so feel free to branch out with informative, related tangents.

(EDIT: removed "ELI5" because it really wasn't what I meant anyway)

Including Mesopotamia

Say an event happens then renders the Ard-Righ seat vacant and either there is no one alive to succeed him or/and no one wishes to fight for the seat or is strong enough to take it. Would it be possible that for a period of time for the high-kingship to be left vacant?

As a Canadian, I've always heard that during the War of 1812 it was the beginning of an identity that forged among Upper and Lower Canadians because of the various Brits, Natives, Scots, Frenchies, and Blacks that fought together against the Americans. Later I would learn that this isn't really true, but I never was able to know specifically why in detail.

What I'm essentially asking is how did this myth start, and what are some incidents from the War of 1812 that debunk this myth?

Obviously the USSR and Nazi Germany were very different places, but both of them focused on building up themselves in Socialism, Military, Industry, etc and both were totalitarian states.

I was looking at a list of conflicts by greatest death tolls and saw that between WW2 (which is easily top) and WW1 there were many conflicts, the mongol conquests and Qing conquest of Ming to name a few. Why isn WW1 treated as shockingly tragic at the time when there have actually been greater losses of life already?

[deleted]

I've always loved the big Wild West bar fight scenes we see in pop culture and Hollywood, but they all seem to show breaking bottles rather easily around people's heads etc, however modern day bottles are quiet hard to break especially onto someone's head. Would the glass have been more fragile/thinner?

This question came to mind after I realized that in almost every WW2 show, movie, or video game, the main character is almost always walking with their squad when a rifle shot ring out and they all dive for cover and are pinned down by some unseen sniper. How common actually was this and snipers in general? Could an average infantryman expect to encounter a sniper threat on a regular basis or was it rare? And how effective were these snipers? Did they rack up huge bodycounts like Simo Häyhä or were they relatively comparable to any other infantry? Thanks!

I've seen it in plenty of youtube comments, but cant really find anything on the internet.

Apparently Hitler's reforming of the Army, while making Germany a forced to be reckoned with, was starting to put pressure on the Economy. Even if Poland had yielded Danzig, sooner or later Germany would have been forced to fight a war to make their investment worthwhile and fuel an economy based on war.

Is that true?

Hope this isn’t breaking rules. He never talked about his experiences as a service man in bomber command. I’d like to know some of the back story behind his medals.

I know they didn't expand into India and the steppes cause of Russia and Persia, but why not into the rich and full of gold Ethiopia? One a side note, why not expand into Yemen and Oman, being rich trade hubs?

The line is,

Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin' here on the Group W bench cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women kids, houses and villages after being a litterbug.

I am interested in different views on both kings! Thank you!

First post here, hope I followed all the rules.

Essentially his argument was that the death toll and human tragedy of the Trail of Tears unfairly oversimplifies and vilifies Jackson, who is more accurately understood as genuinely trying to work out a mutually beneficial solution to a swell in violence against Native Americans. He fully acknowledged that the Trail of Tears was not a "solution" in that sense and that the pain, suffering, and death of thousands of Native Americans was not and cannot be justified, but was also sympathetic to Jackson's position of needing to make a decision on the problem.

I was somewhat skeptical of this as it sounded like the beginnings of arguments that I have heard elsewhere attempting to explain away the racial dimension of the tensions between Native American and white settlers for political reasons, but I did not have time to press him on the topic and do not know much about this area.

I did some initial searching online, but most of the articles I have found so far seem to focus much more heavily on the issues like the questionable legality of the Trail of Tears, the human tragedy of the removal, or the effects on specific Native American groups. The subject of Jackson's motives is either handled very superficially or not at all, seemingly because the articles I have found assume the reader already has a strong opinion.

I understand that questions of motive are difficult to discuss objectively and can be speculative, but I would like to know more about the state of Native American relations at the time. Was there really enough uncontrolled, one sided violence against Native Americans that it could have seemed reasonable at the time to believe that they needed the government's protection from white settlers and speculators? Is there evidence that anyone at the time genuinely believed in removal purely on "humanitarian" grounds and not out of greed, and if so, how widespread was this belief? What evidence do we have to establish Jackson's motives behind the Trail of Tears that is not merely speculative? How should we try to understand Jackson and the Trail of Tears historically without placing either too much or too little emphasis on the suffering and death of thousands of Native Americans?

I hope that is not too much all at once, and thank you to those that read and answer!

Was it really primitive and settlements were only here and there in the wilderness? Were the aboriginals (like the Melanesians) only there? Was dengue fever incurable then and everyone who got it just... died?