In my American history classes, the idea that westward expansion offered a "safety valve" for the discontented came up several times.

Does current historiography still find this idea plausible?

After 1945, did all the people who shared a surname with the Nazi regime leaders change their name to something else? Did anyone NOT do that, were there (or are there?) any other Mr/Mrs Hitlers in Germany/Austria after the war? What about the name Adolf? Did it stop being used completely after 45? Did anyone called Adolf change their names?

Heinrich is still a used name in Germany so I think the first name carried less stigma?

Who was the most prominent 3rd Reich name to not get their names expunged? Are there any Goebbels around? Maybe a Peter Guderian in a 3rd Bundesliga team? Or a Sophie Rommel practicing law in Erfurt?

If the names of the 3rd reich leaders were expunged, is there any other parallel in history to this? I know that there still are Mussolinis in Italy (I believe il Duce's granddaighter is in politics with his name?). Any other people who's actions were so heinous to society that society expunged their names, either legally or organically?

Thank you all in advance!

This only hit me when I was driving through Turkey's Cappadocia region: town after town without a single town square. We were driving and trying to find where these towns center were located (we'd guess a town square), but we simply failed to find one.

Even in Istanbul there are no really important squares -- like Taksim square is located in an important area, but it does not have the role of the of squares elsewhere in Europe or in the Americas.

More examples: in Yogyakarta (city in Java, Muslim-majority Indonesian Island), people hang out in the sidewalks instead of squares, because there aren't any. Same for Japan: towns have parks, but no squares.

Does anyone know why there are no squares outside the "west", as in the main place where where town folks socialize?

Ancient Rome cities had a Forum, the area where people socialized and may be analogous to a town square. But Ancient Rome extended way over Turkey, where I could not find town squares.

It's really odd, because from Canada to Argentina, and in Europe, every small town has a square with a bar and church, and it's where people socialize.

I gotta write an essay about Texas latino history and I actually wanna learn about my peoples history. Preferly, pls use sites that are trustable and have a .org (not necessary)

The infamous war chariots were used by middle eastern civilizations during antiquity, but then completely abandoned never to be seen again, replaced by regular cavalry. I get that horsemen where much cheaper and mobile than a chariot, but I think a dedicated scythe chariot unit would've been extremely effective at least during the early middle ages, no? Is there any evidence that indicates why the whole concept was ditched?

I understand colonialism is a very complicated, localized topic. I am more familiar with colonialism/exploitation in other parts of the world (Eastern Europe, US, South America, did one class on African history), but I recently realized I actually didn't know much about England's activities closer to home.

I'm trying to get a sense of what concepts I can transfer, vs. what was really unique to the situation re: Ireland. There's also a lot of misinformation about this out there, so I'm trying to save myself some energy.

For example, I was surprised to learn that there were large plantations and land redistributions. That sounds like the hacienda system I'm familiar with, but I imagine there were important differences?

I'm confident the common language and shared history made it a very different situation than other examples of colonization? Did enclosure play a big role in motivating the English to expand, or was it just sort of inevitable behavior from a stronger power vis-a-vis their neighbors?

Just getting started, so I appreciate any direction and clarification from the get-go.

Thanks!

I can't find many sources talking about what happened in colombia during these years and when i search them in my own language i only find document about how a movie was talking about love in colombia thank you in advance

It seems empires in the Old World were lower in elevation, I'm sure there are several exceptions, I just want to know why the mountains were so important in the New World.

I mean, I get that they were trying to escape Communism and all that, but why were they trying to get into Berlin of all places? It was completely closed off, it doesn't seem like they would be able to go anywhere else except one city.

I have a lot of doubts regarding the real meaning of this defeat, with issues such as:

i) was purely a military defeat or the willingness of the French officials to surrender quickly was also an important factor ii) why nobody anticipated; both from the British and for the Soviets that expected a much stronger resistance

Pretty self explanatory, considering about 16 million men fought in WW2 (according to national WW2 museum)

They had adopted a weltpolitik policy which led to the morrocan crises, the Anglo-German Arms race, and also issued Austro-Hungary with a blank check of support in punishing Serbia. The schlieffen plan was aggressive and relied on speed to avoid fighting a 2 war front, the Septemberprogramm was based on lebensraum and drive to the east. Should we place all of the blame on Germany though?

Russia mobilised first and set off a chain reaction of countries enacting their war plans. Austro-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia was draconian and although they accepted most of the terms war was declared anyway. I've mainly learnt about this topic through historians Mcmeekin, Fischer, and Clark and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on how far Germany should accept blame for starting the war

With the goal of pretending to be him and enjoying the benefits of citizenship, albeit in somewhere like Iberia.

So here's my perspective on things:

​

Knowledge is first held by a few, and they were the few ones that could actually think philosophy, and carry out scientific experiments. And then came more. Universities expanded, literacy increased, and more and more people were exposed to science and technology. And then, more and more inventors appeared, people who created things and inventions in their back yards. And then it even expanded. Research became something not done by lone individuals (if such a view is accurate) but instead by massive corporations, governments, public-private partnerships, but etc.

​

How did this evolution come about? Was it due to scientific enquiry? What were the political, social, and economic forces behind this? What were the reasons why science and technology seemed to flourish in some institutions, while others were left in the mediocrity? (not just in terms of between western and non-western countries, but between different universities, research institutions, and whatnot).

For example, Prussia and Germany has a reputation for science in the late 19th and early 20th century. How did they achieve this, and how did they keep the science organised and chugging along? What incentives and systems were created to incentivise the creation of useful products for industry?

In Crusader Kings you play as a ruler during the crusades. One task you can give your clergy is to Fabricate a Claim on some neighboring county. The implication seems to be that your bishop "researches" your family tree and provides forged evidence that you should be the true ruler of wherever. You can then press your claim, usually with violence.

Is there any historical basis for something like this? How important was having such a claim anyway?

I was reading about the Cuban Missile Crisis and came across this quote from Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs:

President Kennedy once said… that the United States had the nuclear missile capacity to wipe out the Soviet Union two times over, while the Soviet Union had enough atomic weapons to wipe out the United States only once… I said jokingly, “Yes, he’s quite right. But I’m not complaining… We’re satisfied to be able to finish off the United States first time around. Once is quite enough. What good does it do to annihilate a country twice? We’re not a bloodthirsty people.”

From what I understand each had the capacity to not only wipe the other off the map, but to plunge the rest of the world into anarchy. And so, I think it's a good question: why continue to build up ordinance that seems entirely redundant? If you can destroy the world, why would you want to be able to do it twice?