I've been looking for a good biography of Thaddeus Stevens but cannot find: does anyone have recommendations?

Hello everyone,

I'm currently doing some research on the Soviet-Afghan war. Now what I couldn't find, are details on war crimes or ruthless tactics used by the soviet army or speznas in Afghanistan. Like interrogation-tactics or terrorising the civilian population.

I know the sources for this are probably hard to find, but I'm thankfull for every information on this topic.

Thanks in advance!

Today's popular coffee shops (e.g. Starbucks, Costa Coffee, Caffe Nero) all seem to take influences from Italy. Caffe Nero (a British chain), for example, claims to serve "The Best Coffee this side of Milan". Italian coffee styles (ostentibly, at least), such as ristretto, cappuccino etc. are also dominant in cafés today.

As far as I am aware, apart from Ethiopia, Italy never ruled a major coffee producer. In which case, why/how, despite other major producers of today being ruled by other powers (e.g. Spain in Latin America), did Italian coffee become so dominant?

In the late 17th century, Spain had a huge empire, fuelled by colossal amounts of gold. By the time it got to the 19th century, it didn't even have the strength to keep Napoleon out of its homeland. But I don't know a lot about Spanish history, so I don't know what happened during that time.

And what conditions the concubines condemned to it lived in? I found many references in novels but never a historical description of it.

Almost every day there are some comments trying to explain how the Sherman could/couldn't be penetrated by a Panther at a certain range. Or that it takes 5 Sherman's to take out a Tiger I.

Is this just a result of games like WoT and War Thunder? If not, why is this still a huge debate?

I'm not asking if these tanks were good or not, I'm asking why it's still being debated and defended.

EDIT:

Most people seem to have ignored the question and disintegrated into the debates that I was asking about...

What exactly helped set Venice apart from the other merchant republics of the era, such as Pisa, Genoa or Ancona and from other, larger European kingdoms to become so influential as a trading power? Is it merely its geographical position as the most efficient port for trading between central Europe and the Levant (and therefore, the Silk Road)? Or are there other important factors that contributed to this?

We are under the assumption here that I am capable in military matters and that I survive long enough to retire.

Even if they havent survived, can anyone please give me some other reading material in that vein?

I'm currently looking at the rise and fall of the Spanish empire through an economic lens and I know that often times the Napoleonic wars are cited as one of the final 'nails in the coffin' for Spain as a world power.

I was wondering how disastrous Spain's involvement in the Napoleonic wars were for the economy and empire as a whole.

When I say "realistically," i mean by if the allied forces don't suddenly turn into blithering morons with an army of cowards.

Was it feasible to drop sails, stop the ship, and send a skiff out to grab you? Or were you just assumed to be lost?

I found a bunch of info on why jeans are popular, but not why the color blue

I've been reading through the Ten Books on Architecture for a project, and I've begun to wonder: does the book serve a descriptive purpose, wherein Vitruvius describes how architecture is "done" around the empire, or does it serve a more admittedly prescriptive purpose, in which he is writing to establish how he believes architecture ought to be done? If it's the former, what level of standardization was there throughout the empire for Vitruvius to catalogue? If it's the latter, how much impact did Vitruvius have among his contemporaries (as it's clear he's had an impact on his successors). For instance, when he discusses the proportions of an atrium in a house, are such proportions gleaned from observation of many homes, or are they the set of proportions he finds most pleasing and believes should be the standard?

Years ago, I remember watching some sort of video on Youtube (what an excellent source, I know) about this Stalin apologist denying the figure of 20-24 million people dying due to Stalin's reign and that these numbers were embellished for propaganda purposes. So, my questions are:

How many people died specifically due to Stalin's brutality? Is it possible that this number is embellished?

I don't know if this counts as a poll question or not, but I feel like I'm asking for an opinion on a book rather than on a favorite fact or something. If i'm wrong, then no hard feelings if this post has to be removed.

I'm interested in all of history, so the categorical separation in the literary recommendation FAQ isn't going to help me here. I've heard, for example, about a book about the French Revolution + Napoleon that's epic in scale. I would just like something that reads a bit like a story and is grandiose in scale. It doesn't really matter what it's about.

[deleted]

I realize this question is oddly specific, but I can't find information on it anywhere. Of the four jurisdictions in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, why was the NMI the only one to hold a referendum on joining the United States? How popular was the US in these territories prior to independence? Additionally, why did Guam reject the integration of the NMI into its own political entity?

Most importantly, where can I find some further information on these subjects?

Thank you.

It's logical that the other five languages of the UN (Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish) were chosen in 1945, being the languages of the five permanent members of the Security Council (well except for Spanish, but considering the US' role as de facto leader of South America during the war it fits). But Arabic was not, and would not be given a place until 1973. Again it's logical considering the scope and use of Arabic, but I guess I'm asking why was it in 1973?

[deleted]

Fiction or Non-fiction and it can be any period not fussed.