What was the involvement of NATO/UN and what were other countries stances on the conflict? (I.e other South American ally nations)

[deleted]

Why them, not the other two tribes?

From 1850s until 1940s, extremely wealthy figures such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, Astor, Mellon, JP Morgan etc. lived, having fortunes over 100 billion 2017 dollars. But after the death of Henry Ford in 1947, Haroldson Lafayette Hunt, Jr. became the wealthiest man in America, with a net worth of only around 5 billion 2017 dollars in it's peak, and we don't get a mega-rich person until mid-1990s with Bill Gates.(by mega-rich, I mean comparable to the men I described earlier) Today, there are 45 people in America with a net worth over 10 billion dollars. What caused this shift, and what reversed it in 90s/2000s?

I've been trying to learn more about the Druids and Pre Roman Britain as I did read somewhere that they had 26 universities around the country for students and they themselves had to study for 20 years before becoming a Druid.

What ever year Stonehenge was built was a long time before the Romans arrived, so there was specialised knowledge in Major building works, geometry and Astrology already many years before.

I'm just wondering if there's anyone who's dug deep into the history of the druids?

Thanks

1. Noam Chomsky claims that all industrialized nations used protectionism to get their industry started, not universal protectionism, but aimed at what was high tech at the time. True? False? Murky?

2. A related question. Chomsky also states that Egypt and India were on rout to becoming industrialized, but that this stopped when Britain forced free markets upon them. Is this true?

I'm doing a report of how far was unification from below (mainly nationalism) and how far from above (government action, bit of Bismarck) (UK A-level so not quite uni standard). I'm struggling with primary sources. I have the Ems Dispatch and the North German Constitution (though I couldn't find an english translation so I had to get the general meaning through google translate, if there I could find a better one that would be great).

Are there any speeches of liberal-nationalist leaders maybe or potentially a translation of the 'crown from the gutter' letter from Fredrick William IV from 1848? Anything else like this would be very useful. Thanks

Today, firearms use very specific calibers and cannot operate with cartridges they are not designed for. When looking at older firearms - muskets, aquebuses - it is hard to determine whether they had any standardized caliber and I have never found mention anywhere of, say, the caliber of firearms used by a faction of the Thirty Years War. When was caliber standardized between weapons? And in the period before that, was ammunition for firearms idiosyncratic, with each gun having its own ammunition that would only by pure chance fit another weapon? Or was there no real concern for bore, and balls would just be used for any weapon they would fit into? Further, it would seem on sight that pre-modern pistols and longguns have the same (range of) caliber. When were pistol and rifle calibers differentiated? And was there a concept of an "in-between" caliber/weapon akin to the modern concept of the intermediate cartridge?

I found a table where they compared the countries in Europe regarding their population, state revenue and army size:

Prussia: pop: 5.75m; state rev.: 32m; army: 203 000

Austria: pop: 19.5m; state rev.: 100m; army: 278 000

GB: pop: 11m; state rev.: 112m; army: 58 378

My question is how far this comparision is valid. The point of the table is to argue that Austria and Prussia had to spend much more money on their amry compared to their state revenues than GB. But i would think that financing a mostly infantry army is much cheaper than equipping war ships, and therfore this table overestimates this effect. Is there any literature about the cost of equipping infantry soldiers compared to marines in the 18th century? Or is there someone who can make an educated guess?

For context, i am writing a Bachelor Thesis in Economics about the industrialization process in Austria and compare it to other countries in Europe, and I don't really have the most expertise regarding historical topics.

In a talk (Lesson from History: Transgender Mania is Sign of Cultural Collapse - Camille Paglia), Camille Pagilia argues that from the Greeks to the Romans to now that homosexuality/gender fluidity/etc are what a culture ends up becoming right before it's downfall. The downfall is brought on by the cultures around the dominant culture that are more rigid in gender roles.

Is she on to something here or is she just picking and choosing examples that confirm her point?

And if it is true that the bomb was not needed, why isn't Truman looked upon more harshly?

In general what weapons were used during the Imjin war by each nation involved (Japan, China and Korea).

I just spent a day visiting the Louvre and Musée d'Orsay with my girlfriend. She asked why in the sculptures and paintings, while nudity was common actual sex was not. And the males were never erect. I know that in other cultures fertility totems depicting erect males were common. I'm curious why in European and Asian art, actual sex was never shown.