ww2 was fought in part fought because of ww1. Germany felt humiliated and had to abide by a unfair treaty which set the stage for ww2. The brief hiatus between the wars can be seen as a time to regroup and rearm. Also most of the main countries fighting were the same. So given these points is it safe to draw this conclusion.

I'm reading "A Devil of a Whipping, The Battle of Cowpens," by Lawrence E. Babits. He seems to describe American infantry volley fire as men lining up, one or two ranks deeps, spaced variably close to each other, firing left to right, with battalions alternating who is firing at one time. Do I understand this correctly? I have read elsewhere that volley fire consisted of men several ranks deep, rotating and reloading towards the front, in order to concentrate and increase the rate of fire. Had that not been discovered yet? Many thanks

I'm primarily asking about from the end of the Russian Revolution to before the start of World War Two.

What happened in ireland in the 18-19-20th century that makes Ireland one of the poorest country ? Am curious . Thanks

Edit 1: Thanks for all comments

I am reading Henry Kissinger's "On China" and they gloss over it pretty quickly. It is mentioned that the original seat is given to the Nationalist government on Taiwan as that was the recognized government at the time. What I don't understand is why China was included in the security council in the first place? I understand they had a massive population but at the time not industrialized and embroiled in civil war. Any insight would be appreciated.

After the dissolution of the German armed forces in 1918, Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated and fled to the Netherlands, where he would spend the rest of his days. Why didn't he return to Germany when Hitler rose to power, or when WWII stated? Wouldn't he have been welcomed back by the German people?

I've heard many different points of view on the subject ranging from there was no need since negotiation were being done, to it being the only way the Japanese would have surrendered but people on both sides seem to say the other side is lacking information. Could some of you just help lay down some facts?

Why did they remain as individual countries and not brought into the union as new Soviets?

If I have understood right (and we have no guarantee about that) being skinny wasn't always the preferred body shape. What changed the attitudes and the view of beauty?

I'm reading David Detzer's Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War. On page 70, he states:

During the Civil War, as an agent of the Confederacy, he [Jacob Thompson of Mississippi, and Buchanan's former secretary of the interior] would work in Canada, developing plots to swoop across the border and free Southern prisoners or to burn Northern cities like New York, activities requiring a man chary about revealing himself.

• Did these plots ever come close to posing a real threat to major cities just south of the Canadian border?

• What else do we know about these 'developing plots'?

• Was the atmosphere between Canada and the United States strained in a way as to make these plots feasible?

• With what sort of entities did Thompson find a sympathetic ear?

• What did he (and by extension, the government of the South) promise?

Proper citation:

Detzer, David. "Twilight of the Old Union. Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War. 1st ed. New York, NY: Harcourt, 2001. 70. Print.

Edit: Added a line of inquiry; formatting.

There's a lot of info out there about how Bishops, Cardinals, and the general Nobility reacted, but I haven'the seen anything on what the reaction to the Act was at the local smaller-town level.

Follow-up question, how would their views/sermons have changed following Henry VIII's excommunication in 1538? Would it have come as an unpleasant shock to them ("Bishop never told me nothing!"), or was the writing on the wall as obvious as the medieval equivalent of a giant flashing neon sign?

I.e. the citizens, government & high-ranking officials, the military? Thanks!

I have been using Ibn Kathir and Al-Jalalayn's books of tafseer but I want to consult another source. Are there any other academically credible books of tafseer? Lastly, is Tabari's tafseer available in english?

Keep in mind I'm still kinda new to this period of history. I've been reading a bit about the Thirty Years' War, and my understanding is that the ongoing conflict with the Dutch trying to rebel from Spain (the "Eighty Years' War") got tied into it. And of course, I know from history class that during this century the Dutch East India Company was formed and became a really big deal, to say the least. But it looks to me that the DEIC was founded when the Dutch were still subjugated by Spain. Did the Spanish Empire interfere with it? Did they get a cut of the profits? Was the DEIC allied with Dutch rebels? It seems like a pretty big conflict of political sovereignty between what I've been told is a really powerful historic entity (the company) and their country's alleged "owners" (the Spanish). What's going on here?

1. Did Orthodox face religious discrimination like Catholics and Jews?

2. Going off of Herberg's Protestant-Catholic-Jew, specifically

Hedberg argues that American social life was ordered into Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish slices, but in the Post War period, these were all seen as more or less equally valid ways of being American. He argues America wasn't just one melting pot, but a "triple-melting pot".

Were Orthodox Christians similarly "valid" Americans, or were they not?

I can't find any figures, and after learning about Allied troops' rape of thousands, I'm curious. Death tolls are given, but not rape tolls.

Outside of European struggles that dragged the HEIC into conflict on the sub-continent alongside the mother country, were the Company's expansionary ventures fought as government-endorsed actions (e.g. the Maratha Empire being at war with Britain and not the HEIC on its own) or something akin to "private" wars?

Obviously, the peoples who populated the Americas originated from the Old World in some way or another. Did any of that get passed down? Was there any sort of awareness that they had crossed onto a different continent?

I've read up a lot on this and there seems to be a pretty significant gap between the estimates that we're given (20-50 million-ish? Some as high as 100 million?).

Is there a more widely accepted answer? Or is this range the most consistent figure I'll be able to find?

edit: During the 1918 epidemic if that wasn't clear!

Traditionally, Southerners are more connected to the land. A Southern might give directions, "Go up yonder past the felled tree.." It's a true stereotype even today. I always assumed that it was due to that, but I'm unsure.

Also, some battles have only one name, like Gettysburg or Fredericksburg, the latter interestingly was not called the Battle of the Rappahannock. Shilo was called Pittsburg Landing by the South, but it is widely known today as Shilo. Antietam was named for Antietam Creek but also called Sharpsburg by the North, but even though the battle was a Union victory, it's called the Battle of Antietam.

Why does one battle name dominant and why are there multiple names for the same battle?

Hi, I know this question has been asked a million times before, but mine is more specific.

I'm trying to get a gift for my good friend's birthday. He is a history major in college and a huge wwii buff (mostly western/eastern fronts, particularly the German side).

The problem is, I've looked at the book recommendations on the sidebar, and he has already read many of them. Plus he's already read dozens of biographical accounts from different sides of the war, so I think anything more biographical would just bore him at this point.

Basically, I'm trying to find some books, or even some cool items that offer a unique perspective of the war. Perhaps something revolving more technological or just "different" than your usual biography.

He has got pretty wide tastes, so anything that is german/russian related + wwii he will probably enjoy.

The Netherlands, as well as some places within it such as The Hague are generally by 'the'. Why is that the case when other countries in close proximity are not, such as Belgium.