[deleted]

[deleted]

It seems most answers have been along the lines of "Hitler had a soft spot in this regard because of his experiences in WW1", but it doesn't seem this interfered with the methods of the "Final Solution". I remember reading a reprinted article in The War Illustrated describing the inadequacies of artificial rubber at the time for keeping molecules of poison gas at bay, thus the Germans, now without any colonies in Africa at their disposal, were at a disadvantage as far as capacity to create masks for the allied retribution if they did attack. Verify?

Hello /r/AskHistorians,

I need help for my AP Euro exam. I know that in the Middle Ages there were the three estates; the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners.

How was society broken down by class during the Renaissance?

Thanks

[deleted]

Specifically I'm interested in situations like those faced by Thomas Mifflin (first territorial governor of Pennsylvania and signer of the declaration) who was effectively excommunicated for his involvement in the war.

I'm asking this question in a purely American context (US). I remember someone once telling me that once upon a time that Black was the rude form of address at the time that Negro was considered polite, and now, of course, Negro is no longer an acceptable form of address except in certain historical context (Negro College Fund, etc). Is it true that there was a time when Black was a "slur", and Negro the popular term?

I was wondering when ("polite" wouldn't be the correct term, I guess) each form of address for Black people fell in and out of favour.

If that is too broad, then I am most curious on this point. When did the term Negro fall out of favour?

I hope the question is coherent.

[deleted]

For example, nowadays the culture in the 70s was pretty different from the culture in the 80s. Whether it be the way people dressed, the type of music most people liked, etc. Or maybe if we want to look on a bigger scale than decades, the difference between 1950 and 2000 is clearly pretty substantial.

But when we look back on history, usually we don't really think about it on such a small scale and I never even considered the possibility that maybe in 1660 the fashion might have completely changed by the mid 1670s. I just hear "1600s" and have one rough idea of what the culture was like and assume it is (relatively) consistent throughout the century.

But on the other end - I have heard that equating future with change is a fairly recent concept in society, and in the past people often thought of the future as being much of the same. So were they right in thinking that? Or was there actually pretty substantial changes in short periods like there are nowadays, but it's just not as well documented or discussed.

I have a project for work that is based on history. Where I am lost is I need a timeline of the periods of time, like the Stone Age - 20th century. I have been googling and researching but all the information is just going right over my head. Can someone please shine some light on this.

[deleted]

Why did the average Russian soldier acquit himself so well against Napoleon? They were seemingly the worst fed, clothed and housed. Most were conscripts serving 25 year deployments without the possibility of leave and yet they consistently performed better than their Prussian and Austrian allies. They did almost all the fighting at Austerlitz, Eylau was only saved for the French by a mass cavalry charge and despite the defeat at friedland and tilsit they maintained their cohesiveness. Borodino was won by the fighting in the fleche which mainly consisted of a brutal melee and even after bagration was wounded and presumed dead the Russians didn't retreat. Surely this was not solely due the weather or general Tolly and Bagration. What factor did the Russians have that the Austrians and Prussians lacked?

I don't understand what realities provoked the war. Did they fear collapsed economies as trade became dominated by the other great powers? I know Germany for example feared "encirclement", but what was the point of relatively wealthy resource rich nations starting a war?