My understanding of de Gaulle's background is that he was largely an analyst-type of general without any nationally-known heroics from WW1, and that his highest pre-WW2 French governmental position was Undersecretary of State. My guess is that the Radio London broadcasts made by de Gaulle were the instrument that gave him credibility as the leader of the Free French. It is also my assumption that those broadcasts were made only after a carefully measured assessment by Churchill, et al, that de Gaulle was the leader they wanted to be installed of the wartime and also post-war France. Considering that de Gaulle later would have a reputation for frosty relations with allies, were there concerns at the outset with propping up de Gaulle, or was he the clear and obvious choice to support?

Often I will see "The 00s" in written media, but how do historians refer to that decade in conversation? I've heard the "aughts," and even the playful "onesies," but I wonder if Historians don't have something a bit more elegant.

Hi,

not looking for any speculation or hypothetical maybes, but for actual strategies or plans from the period.

In case the allied forces would have been beaten on the western front, for instance in the battle of the Bulge, and forced to withdraw from the continent and/or surrender their forces there, what would the allies have done?

Would Russia alone have been able to win, despite possible german reinforcements?

Would the italian front have made any differences?

Would such a loss have forced the allies to look for a truth?

Would the re-arming of the western allies have forced them to stop the vital supplying of Russia?

Would it have brought the Pacific-campaign to a stand-still?

Any hints would be hugely welcome.

Were/are there people who genuinely believe Nixon didn't do anything wrong, besides Nixon and his closest advisers?

I have an odd question for you wise people. What are yalls opinion on people who call soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht nazis? It is to my understanding that although the Wehrmacht were the armed forces of nazi Germany and were indoctrinated to nazism to a certain degree, it was composed of every day german soldiers that were conscripted or were just performing their duty despite the politics. I know of many objections within their ranks to what the regime was doing, and that also some of them must have believed in the ideological target they were fighting to achieve, but is it accurate to label it as a nazi organization?

In my opinion, the only accurate military representation of "nazi" would have been the waffen SS, where the requirements to join (at least at first) were fueled by the ideology (had to be aryan, certain height, perfect teeth, ideologically pure, etc). Within these ranks, the ideological views of nazism, such as the superiority of the aryan race and "untermensch" were implemented into the men, which in fact made them careless of human life in the battlefield and effective fanatical soldiers. This in my opinion as I said before would be accurate as nazi.

But what about the Wehrmacht? What do y'all think?

I recently fell into a Wikipedia rabbit hole and kinda got curious about this.

I've read that people in the area would have been speaking Ligurian/Zeneize. Would that have been among their first languages? I also read that this language is more similar in structure to French than Italian and that Italian was relatively limited this early on. Would that have translated to people speaking more French?

On a more general note, would they have likely learned Latin at this time period if they had attended a university?

Essentially I'm just wondering what the average educated member of a Genoese merchant house would have been relatively likely to be able to speak.

edit: I guess I should clarify my title - the "height" of the Genoese Republic has a few different possibilities for date ranges according to the internet. I can't edit my title, so let's maybe just pretend it says "in the Geonese Republic ~1550-1650ish" instead of mentioning anything about a "height."

Or was it just keep throwing punches until you hit something?

Today people always compare evil people to Hitler or Nazis as if they define evil. Was there a similar reference before WW2? Bonus question, when exactly did this reference start?

This is really the one thing I can't find anything anywhere about. I have some decent knowledge of modern military organizations, but I can't seem to find anything about during medieval times.

In particular would a Muslim resident be called Rumi, or a Turk or a Seljuk? What identity would they perceive as most important? If they called themselves Rumi, would that create confusion when referring to the (Byzantine) Romans who would also be called Rumi?

I know the Pax Brittanica ends when ww1 starts but how could 100 years of winning end because of a Great War?

Also, if there is a better sub for this question, please let me know, thanks!

And how much Islamic religious knowledge would the average peasant or urban-dweller have possessed before the modern-era? Would a peasant or artisan in something like 12th century Damascus even have thought of prostitution or homosexuality as being sinful? Or would knowledge of what constitutes sin been restricted only to the religious class?

Hey all,

I recently dove down the rabbit hole of genealogy and discovered that my antecedents came over to England during the Norman invasion in the 11th century.

The journey peaked my interest in the period and I'd like to know if any of you have come across any decent books you'd recommend covering either the invasion, the impact on greater Europe, or a combination of the two.

Thank you in advance!

We've all seen the pictures of food queues, empty shelves, etc - but these are invariably from the Perestroika years. The same thing goes for every anecdote and account of shortages that I have encountered. Sometimes I see vague references to "chronic shortages", etc, but it's hard to get a grip on the frequency of them. I'm reasonably well-read on pre-war Stalinism, but my knowledge of the Cold War era is really quite limited.

So were food queues, empty shelves, turning to the black market for basic staples, etc, a near-constant feature of Soviet life? Were the consumer goods consistently as poor as is often said?

Finally, when shortages ocurred, especially of staple food items, what were the immediate causes?

Thanks!

Hello, my name is Rigmar, I live in the Netherlands and I am currently 15 years old. I'm hoping to become a historian in my adult life. This is my first post here so I am quite nervous. I never got proper history lessons at school, and to make things worse I am unable to go to school at the moment.

History has been a huge interest if not passion of mine ever since I was 9 years old. I have always struggled to find good sources of information. I know there are plenty of books out there, but I simply do not know where to start.

I was wondering if anyone can give me some tips on where to start, because I'm very eager to learn.

Thank you for reading my question!