After this topic came randomly while talking to some American friends (I am Mexican), I realized they keep saying things such as "When we colonized America" or "When we set up the colonies". Whereas at least from what I can remember we say in Mexico (and talking to some friends from Guatemala and Panama agreeing with me) things such as "When the Europe invaded us" or "When the Spanish conquered us"

Is there a historical reason as to why this two different postures about the same topic change drastically between North America and South American? Could it have been because of the miscegenation being a bigger situation in the Spanish territories? or is it something more recent rather than in the culture from the past?

Hi guys,

I'm a high school teacher in the UK and I've got to teach a unit called 'Conflict and Tension in Asia 1950-1975' which focuses on the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations because, at this moment in time the exam board hasn't published a text book and the section in the generic book covers the whole period in 20 pages...

The British stuck to night time raids where only 1.5% of bombs hit their target. They used night time raids because their strategic bombers (mostly the Lancaster) had poor defense compared to the "Flying Fortress" and the other strategic bomber used in Europe, the B-24 Liberator. I'm not aware of the British ever upgrading the Lancaster to have more guns, and I'm not aware of any new bombers they put into service that came after the Lancaster. Since the British bombers couldn't defend themselves in the air, they bombed at night. So why didn't they ever change their bombers?

My Grandpa was born in Poland in 1939, and he told me that he remembered the soldiers(when he was 4 or 5) and said that the Germans left chocolates and were nice. And in fact his mum usually cooked for them. Then he said when the Russians came they where animals. One of them apparently hustled his mum.

Was this true throughout German occupation or was my Grandpa and his family lucky with the Germans that came his way?

I was watching The Last Samurai and I wondered if proper discipline could have stopped the charge. I was wondering if it could be stopped without the help of pikemen or supporting infantry

EDIT: *Were. Shit.

Volkssturm, Sturmabteilung, Der Stürmer, Sturmlied, Sturmführer, Sturmgewehr, etc

Seems like every generation of elders finds something the new generaiton is getting into an then blasts it ruining the fabric of society.

I think I read something somewhere about ancient Greek philosophers (or maybe not, hazy memory) warning against mass uptake of literacy as it would affect how people interact with one another.

The two next most produced WW2 aircraft, the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Supermarine Spitfire, both have dozens of survivors still airworthy today. The Il-2 even has very few static, un-airworthy examples left, barely a dozen based on wikipedia.

I realize that this encompasses a rather large time period, rather different cultures and locations, nevertheless I'm interested in the question in the many different possible contexts.

Queen Elizabeth I's heir was James VI of Scotland. His mother was the infamous Mary Queen of Scots, whom Elizabeth had had executed. I understand that James VI and Elizabeth I developed a close relationship via letters over many years, and that Mary had had participated in plots to over throw Elizabeth, but I still don't understand how Elizabeth could execute Mary whom she considered a rival....Yet name Mary's son James VI as her heir. Can you explain how and why Elizabeth would execute the mother...Then leave her entire kingdom to the son? I find it very strange.

I'm not sure exactly where to date this. But say roughly from the High to Late Middle Ages. When Islam had fully absorbed the population of its conquests from Spain to India. But Christian Europe had not yet complete the Reconquesta or begun the massive expansion to the New World. So roughly the peak of Islamic expansion at the expense of the Christian World.

Did the Islamic population exceed the world Christian population during this time period?

I would like to preface this question by saying that I've only recently discovered a passion for history, so my knowledge at this point is a limited patchwork. This is also my first reddit post.

What I don't understand is why during the Age of Discovery it seems like only a handful of European states actually colonized the New World. I was specifiy wondering about China or the Muslim civilizations. I know they didn't lack the resources to do so. Was there a cultural component to this?

I figure the answer is pretty vast and isn't as simple as a few bullet points, but I'd rather pose this question here than enter the keywords into google and end up at a Stormfront message board.

Really fancy-like?

As above. How would Northerners, Republicans and Anti-slavery democrats have generally been treated in the South, where they were probably the biggest threat to their "curious institution".

Based on how effective the earthquake bomb was at destroying/collapsing German underground tunnel systems and bunkers, was there any thoughts of using it to destroy the Japanese defensive lines on Okinawa, and if not, why?

(I tried searching for this question, but didn't find anything. I apologize if it's been asked before)

[deleted]

It seems all too common in modern events, but what were its roots?

In general, how much attention did world powers pay to the early United States?