In my AP US History class I was taught it was Reagan. However, upon googling it for my essay to find the exact date the hostages were released, politifact has said Carter's administration dealt with releasing the hostages.

Is this true?

In 1946, Winston Churchill gave the Iron Curtain speech that created the ideological framework of post-war central europe. In 1948, Clement Atlee enthusiastically led Britain to be the primary recipient of the Marshall Plan, alongside France and West Germany. In 1949, joined NATO in an alliance with other European powers. Despite De Gaulle vetoing the UK's application to the European Economic Community multiple times in the 60s, Prime Ministers of both the Conservative and Labour parties continued to apply until the UK was eventually allowed to join in 1973.

To me, all of these indicate that the UK had a strong interest, which was robust to domestic politics, in continental European economics and politics. Yet, in 1988 Margaret Thatcher openly expressed distaste towards the European Community, and refused to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1990. These policies of distancing the UK from European politics seem to contradict decades of foreign policy.

What events in the 1980s made this political change of course possible? Was there any one tipping point? Obviously, this has implications on recent history, which breaks the 20-year-rule, but I'm more interested in the point at which the UK shifted from generally wanting to be involved in the European Community (in the 50s), to generally wanting to distance itself from that same community. What events occasioned the shift?

I'm designing a science fiction scenario known as a 'paleofuture', which is essentially a futuristic setting based on past perceptions of the World of Tomorrow. For example: the future was seen as one big hedonistic global cooling-riddled snowball in the 1970s, while most Americans seemed to be under the impression that Japan would 'take over the world' in the 1980s. These trends are implemented primarily for their quaint datedness, and are often exaggerated from the original attitude to emphasize the obvious connection to the specific decade.

The Space Race definitely had an influence on the technological outlook on the future, of course. But how about geopolitics? Was counterculture seen as an element that would break up the Cold War and introduce some weird third-way powers?

Did the Greeks have regular contact with Ethiopians? Do we know how the Greeks thought of theM?

Also, as the Greeks seem to be assuming here that the Ethiopians worship their gods, does this mean that the Greeks viewed their religion as the "true" religion, or were they more like the Romans who freely borrowed gods from other cultures (i.e. the egyptians) and saw foreign gods as similar or forms of their own?

Hello, I'm a Canadian highschool student taking an American History class. For my culminating project (15% of my final mark) I had the choice to do an essay or 30 minute seminar on a topic of my choice in between WWII and the present. I elected to argue that sports and music were the most important influences in breaking down the racial barrier in America. Any help, ideas or music you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

Sorry this is super broad. The question came to mind when reading Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" which makes this assertion:

"These conflicts between princes, nation-states, and ideologies were primarily conflicts within Western civilization, 'Western Civil Wars,' as William Lind has labeled them. This was as true of the Cold War as it was of the World Wars and the earlier wars of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries"

It seems to say that conflicts were only happening in the "Western" world during these time periods. Were there no wars in the East?

I find this topic very interesting, so what happened to Burr, Elizabeth Hamilton, and many others after Hamilton perished?

I realise that other countries did break away from the former Soviet Union. I don't mean in the sense of Estonia breaking off it, but rather let's say "Nortern Russia" based in St. Petersburg, a "Southern Russia" based in Moscow, a "Eastern Russia" based in Yakaterinburg etc.

[deleted]

As I understand it, bayonet combat was already rare by the Napoleonic wars, yet it was still the norm for troops to march into battle with their bayonets already attached. When did the bayonet become something that soldiers only fixed to their rifles in specific situations, for instance right before their commander orders a charge?

This could really apply to any bomber such as the Halifax or the Lancaster but the B-24 in particular was the most produced bomber of the war yet it is largely forgotten by casual fans of history. When picturing WW2 bombers the B-17 is in the forefront, maybe followed by the aforementioned British bombers then some German ones perhaps.

Did the B-17 have a greater impact despite the B-24 being more widespread or was there another reason for the B-24 being largely forgotten in popular media?

It wasn't until after the Crimean war that the practice of purchasing officer commissions in the British Army ceased, and they moved towards a meritocracy for advancement in the military. What was the justification for the practice of purchasing/selling commissions? Was it considered a means of fundraising? Or simply a means of ensuring that only the nobility would control the armed forces? Was their any response when Revolutionary France started to shift to a meritocracy in the military?

Marriage would make a lot more sense if it came from a specific religious institution, however I can't really pinpoint it.

I've read somewhere that it might have been due to an Egyptian Queen who spearheaded the idea of marriage, but not sure if that's accurate.

i found this specific word used excessively in both the Alhambra's Engravings in the main hall and the emirate's coat of arms and flags as well, and it does not seem like a quote from the Koran or Islamic sources

i really hope someone answer me this time

I've been reading about the Pharaohs on Wikipedia and it got me thinking - what did they actually do? Were they just representatives of state? I've read that they were considered to be actually divine so maybe also the religious leader? What were their responsibilities? Entertainment paints them as living lavishly luxurious lives free from worry or stress but they surely must have had to actually be productive in some manner in order to hold the title or else they'd be seen as abusing the position, right?

A narrative I hear a lot in military history is that Cavalry just stopped being used during WW1, due to advances in technology. Yet the image I get of the Russian Civil War, and of the Polish-Soviet war through books like Babel's Red Cavalry, is that cavalry was still used extensively: is this true? If so, just how effective were cavalry units? What kind of roles did they fill? Were they used on the front-lines? And when and why did the Soviet army eventually mechanise?