World War 2 was total war. Did the allies simply seize the oil fields of the middle east by force and tell those nations they'd get paid back later?

Reposting, because I forgot to put the word "lead" after "molten". Braintoot.

[deleted]

I don't know where to begin, really, so I guess I'll start with the questions I posited in the title to this and this one: how was Romania able to mobilize so many men during WW2 in support of Germany and why/how did they do so?

It's hard to find much about Romania (in English) during WW2 beyond the basic factual statements that Romania contributed almost a million men to the German war effort and some basic calculations regarding their impetus to do so.

So, I'm curious how this all played out: why Romania in such a prominent role (i.e.: why not Bulgaria? Or Serbia? Or Albania? What made Romania special, if anything?); Did they use their own materiel or were they equipped by Germany?; Did they fight well compared to the other Axis allies of Germany?

Why rely on the Romanians to guard the flanks of Stalingrad? How could Italian contributions be so limited in terms of fighting ability and mobilization, yet Romanian contributions apparently so helpful and (apparently) eager? There simply isn't much on this topic that I can find to satisfy my curiosity.

I am gathering information to write an alt-history novel involving Spain in 1916, and cannot find any information on the types of arms used by the Spanish Army during this time.

I understand that during the later part of the war he wasn't a very good military strategists, but what about earlier in the war? I've found multiple sources that claimed that he was always a bad strategist while I've found just as many that have said that, at least in the earlier part of the war, he was a good military strategist. What's the truth? Thanks.

Has the POTUS (President of USA) ever been single and dated while holding office? Have all presidents been married?

I haven't found anything in the Federalist papers or John Adams minutes from the convention to suggest the framers ever talked about giving smaller, less populated states more influence in th election of the president.

I'm not a historian, but it seems to me the EC was devised for two reasons (1) The founders didn't like the idea of the illiterate masses choosing the president directly and (2) they didn't want the president chosen directly by congress because he'd just spend all his time schmoozing them and lobbying them for re-election.

I'm aware that the 3/5 compromise was put into place to "boost" the population of the slave states, and the Senate having two representatives from each state regardless of size/population as a mechanism for increasing the influence of the smaller states.

But I haven't seen anything suggesting this was one of the specific reasons for the electoral college.

I realize I am likely over simplifying. What I mean by Viking is a strategy of accumulating wealth through trade, navigation, and costal raiding.

But I see a lot of similarities between Japan and Scandinavia. Portions of rich farmland, a lot of water, mountainous and perhaps harder to traverse, and a cultural importance placed on the sea.

My question is if Japan had a period of Vikings as a profession. I would imagine there would be a lot to gain by trading by sea and raiding.

As a broader topic, how common is costal raiding throughout history? Are there other Vikings out there that we don't hear about often? Am I just misguided in my understanding of Vikings?

Hey guys I was wondering if you knew any slang terms for male prostitutes from 1680-1720? The more there better, the meaner the better. Thanks!

I want to form my own opinions about the presidents of the US, but reading most books on them is bound to be biased in some way. For example, a democrat could choose to focus on Reagan's negative sides, and dismiss the positives etc.

Any help would be appreciated!