I'm reading Shogun by James Clevall and the Portuguese characters talk about conquistadors like they're separate from the regular Spanish army, while I thought conquistador was just a label for any Spanish forces conquering New World territory.

I was wondering if, so shortly after the end of WWII, the inner six countries forming the ECSC experienced tensions between the former enemies (west-Germany and Italy vs. France, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg)? And, if there were tensions, how did they manifest? How were they dealt with?

If I recal correctly, a lot of the German leadership wasn't replaced after WWII and many functionairies remaind in their post. I can imagine this leading to tensions between former axis and allied leadership in trading etc

I know Gone with the wind is a work of romantic fiction. However I have always wondered how accurate its portrayal of women's roles is. Specifically would Scarlett, a widow, have owned and managed a mill alongside another married man? Would a woman from upper class society have been a manager of any business, or indeed worked at all?

I'm thinking of the Founding Fathers here but any and all information is welcome. Were they like hats that it was just polite to wear in all situations? What's the reason for those hairstyles being proper? If someone could just explain this whole thing to me I'd really appreciate it.

Was it that the German soldiers were stabbed in the back after their time spent fighting during WW1? Or how the Weimar signed the treaty of Versailles after they thought they could settle a peaceful resolution to the war?

The system of nation-states we have today is occasionally called the Westphalian system. My understanding is that this revolves around mutual recognition of statehood, which seems like a reasonably elegant approach to the definition of something as otherwise hard to define as a state. However, it seems that some states - England and France, for example - had national identities from long before this. How much of the Westphalian treaty was new thinking, and how much was simply writing down what was already done? Or, indeed, is attributing this to the treaty of Westphalia accurate at all?

I'm working on some undergraduate research for my history program and I'm trying to decide what subject to look into (we're only limited to having it related to WWI) and this was one of the subjects that came to mind.

I guess that this question is really a few smaller questions. Some of them being:

Did American imperialism in the 1890's combined with the American expedition into Mexico after Pancho Villa make the Mexican government legitimately afraid of America annexing Mexican territory?

Why didn't America recognize the Mexican government diplomatically before the Zimmerman telegram?

Was the Mexican government even capable of any sort of large scale offensive?

Were the Germans inspired by the success of the British inciting rebellion in the Middle East?

Did the German diplomats think that the Mexican government would actually agree to the proposal?

Any additional reading you might have would be greatly appreciated. Especially books to get a decent overview of the diplomatic situation between Mexico and America during the time period.

The Japanese Navy had a pretty powerful fleet with a strong carrier group and numerous battleships. Even if the Japanese had not attacked with aircraft could only two capital ships have had any realistic hope of holding off a determined thrust by Japanese surface combatants? Should not Singapore have been given more naval resources?

After seeing dozens of war movies (especially Idi I Smotri) the german army in occupied territories around Europe commited war crimes like Soviet did in occupied Germany and so on.

My question is maybe for every country during that time period but I'm wondering about Germany more specifically.

Did the Nazis encourage themselves to use terror as a form warfare during the war?

Referring to the ones that occurred between 1938 and 1945. As far as I can tell they were against the countries in WW2 (Lapland war, winter war) and during the time period of WW2. Why isn't Finland included?

I mean I sort of understand why because many came from rich families but to lay out all these grand principles in the Constitution and then place restrictions on even when a white man could vote seems a little strange to me. What was the logic behind that?

[deleted]

During the First World War, the German leadership planned—in the event of a German victory—to annex portions of eastern Belgium, and to transform the remaining territory (perhaps with the addition of some annexed from France) into a vassal. This new state was to be known as the Kingdom of Flanders-Wallonia, which raises the question: who was to be its king? Would the Belgian king be left in place, would a new monarch (such as a former German prince) take his place, or would the kingdom have been placed in a personal union with the Kaiser himself—as was intended for the United Baltic Duchy?

In every show and documentary I've seen, the landing craft had one big door on the front that opened as a ramp. Why weren't they designed with doors on the sides or back to provide the soldiers/marines some sort of cover rather than immediately expose them to enemy fire?

I know it has something to do with how fast the powder burns and the possibility of the barrel bursting being higher in cannons, but I'm not entirely sure of the mechanism. Does fine powder do more damage to the barrel but also propel the bullet farther? If so, how does this work?

Surely they had many of the same resources as ancient Europe and Asia. Why weren't they anywhere near as technologically advanced?

Iran is on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, with the Volga flowing into it from the north. The Volga River is large, navigable and has a vast basin feeding into it that goes deep into Russia. The surrounding areas didn't have as easy of access to the larger, richer and more advanced civilizations far to their south.

What were the effects of this? Iran had great and advanced civilizations going back to Elam and likely earlier.

Turkey's geographic position would make it invaluable for:

a. Outflanking Britain's defense of the Middle East (and the Middle East oil fields). A drive from Turkey into Syria and Iraq would caused Britain's strategic position to collapse and would have succesfully completed a Mediterranean Strategy against Britain (a move favored by Goering and Doenitz).

And

b. Put the Germans within early striking distance of Russia's vulnerable Baku oil fields (the objective of Case Blue in 1942). Baku provided 90% of Russia's oil and its loss would have crippled the Red Army and grounded the Red Airforce due to lack of POL.

Does the road to German victory in WW2 run through Turkey to the Baku and Middle East oil fields?

There is a particular passage that I have been trying to dig up an answer to.

2.13: "Nothing is more wretched then a man who traverses everything in a round, and pries into things beneath the earth, as the poet says, and seeks by conjecture what is in the minds of his neighbors, without perceiving that it is sufficient to attend to the demon within him, and to reverence is sincerely."

I've been looking to see if the author is attempting to reference a specific poet, or if he is just saying that poets have commented on his topic throughout history. I'm hoping to find the source material for his poet remark, and dive deeper into his thought process, if there is an actual poet he might have been thinking of.

I originally posted this on /r/askphilosophy but they thought you all might have a better idea.