Hi, historians. It's me again. My family is largely, like all of it, Southern (American) in heritage. I have a lot of George Washington [last name] and Benjamin Franklin [last name]s in my family, but I've also got Francis Marion [last name] and Andrew Jackson [last name]s as well. Strangely, I also have a great Uncle that was Oliver Wendell [last name]. He was born in 1906, so when OWH was a Supreme Court Justice, but why would a Southern family named their child after a Yankee with a relatively large US Civil War role? I assume it must be from is legal career - perhaps some sense of fairness or "Constitutionality"?

P.S.: 1. I think it's cool they did it and 2. while I never knew Oliver Wendell [last name] he apparently took my oldest brother to town and bought him cowboy boots and an ice cream, so he's AOK in my book.

It is not usual discussed in common discourse about the war(s). Was there any big events that influenced their respective out comes and in the latter was there any resistance to the any Nazi occupation. I admit I am ignorant of such things and want to know more.

It would seem to me like London wouldn't want a new distribution of power from the more or less stable regime post-1815, even despite the 1848 revolutions and the Crimean war.

Yet as far as I read the UK didn't try to avoid the rise of such a behemoth as Prussia would become, even defeating Austria and France. Why?

Bonus question: How did UK policy towards Germany change with Disraeli's arrival?

When you think of the largest and the most economically prosperous cities in the south, you think of Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, Miami. However, these are different than what people typically think of as the historically prosperous cities like Richmond, Charleston, New Orleans, Savannah, etc.

However, in the north, the largest and the most prosperous are the likes of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, etc which are also the historically prosperous and large cities.

What caused the development of these new cities in The South? And what caused the relative stagnation of the historically large cities in The South?

Lenin intended to keep the NEP temporarily yet it lasted 7 years until Stalin abandoned it. It feels like Lenin was more moderate and willing to accommodate changes to maintain stability. It seems like the NEP succeeded far better than expected. Lenin did view the NEP as state capitalism but then why did it last so long? Did he ever reconcile that this state capitalism could be useful for a long-term ease into socialism?

I know the French helped the American rebels during their revolution; did America ever help France during theirs?

Where does that habit come from? Why and since when couples started to sleep together?

I have looked around this sub a bit to try and find something that answers this, but I can't seem to solve the conundrum I had the other day.

If the only way to give carpet a good cleaning, prior to the vacuum, was to take it outside and beat it, then why was wall-to-wall carpet (i.e. fixed and permanently installed) used? Wouldn't that have been a ridiculous suggestion for how to cover the floor?

A supplementary question: were vacuums first marketed as domestic machines (as opposed to commercial applications)? Surely they were very expensive at first.

My mom told me it is but it is full of contradictions and things we know never happened.

Did people know it was a likelihood / possibility that their volcano could blow up / become very active? were there lots of people talking about this, or was it something they couldn't / shouldn't talk about?

I'm thinking specifically of the French and British, and then the British and Americans, and, finally, the Canadian British and Americans.

I'd assume that by the time that the European powers came in contact in the South and Southwest, the Natives would have understood at least some of the difference between French, British, and Spanish.

How about Portugal and Spain?

Spain, England, and Russia?

Obviously, there would be a difference based on culture and location, but can anyone provide a rough timeline?

Did Scottish Panama last long enough to make an impression on the locals?

Thank you.

Prior to Amr al-as' conquest, Egypt supplied Constatinople 2.5 million hectorlitres of grain yearly. Did losing this lead to inflation, starvation?? How was it replaced?

I'm wondering how much it 'hurt' the British to lose the American Colonies. Did they have other colonies that represented a significant portion of their tax income as well? Or were the American Colonies their largest holding (economically)?

I'm reading Empire of Cotton by Sven Beckert. He mentions, in passing, the importance of naval insurance in the expansion of European trade (p. 30, First Vintage Books edition).

This got me thinking, how prevalent was insurance fraud over 'lost' ships? In an era before photos, couldn't you just get a few people to lie, sell the ship elsewhere, then claim it was 'lost'? Particularly if the ship was already getting up there in years and you wanted to purchase a new ship with the funds from both a sale of the old one and the money from your insurance agreement?

I hope we can all agree that the dropping of the atomic bombs was awful. However was there any better options available. I see a lot of people visibly angry about the bombs (and me for saying it was a necessary evil) but never give any other way the allies could have solved the problem.I can only think of 3 plans myself all of which would probably kill more people.

1.Invasion: a full on invasion and military occupation of Japan might be the most deadly since the Japanese government was planning for such an invasion. The populace was almost a national militia ready to fight to the death to defend their home.

2. bombing the whole country to bits: continuing the preexisting bombardment of cities and industrial centers with more conventional bombs could take much much much longer to get 'results" and may result in many more deaths. (Also firebombing isn't much more pleasant than a nuke, is it?)

3. Starvation: Blockade the whole Island and starve the people into submission. From what i understand Japan was not able to grow enough food for their citizens (one reason they invaded korea). So instead of a quick death the U.S. would stretch it out to weeks/months of agonizing pain for most of the populace.

Am I wrong with my thinking, was there ever a better option? Wasn't the Japanese army against the idea of surrender under any circumstances? Or am I just a horrible asshole?

My girlfriend is in fashion school and has a project about 1888 Estonia. Basically she just needs to research what was going on in/the culture in that yr, and then design a garment based off that style. The problem is, she is having a hard time finding any resources on it. Any advice one where she can find information on something like that? We both come from science backgrounds so we are used to searching a keyword online and finding lots of primary articles about it.

Were there equivalents to our modern board games or card games or the such?

I'm aware that the red army was stationed in eastern Europe following the second world war. Yet, this does not mean that the sovereignty of these states suddenly disappeared. I expect there to be (fierce) resistance to a foreign overlord attempting to establish itself. Or at the very least, a less than smooth transition of power. So, how did the USSR manage to establish dominance in all of those countries?