While today it seems like the USA maintains a diplomatic presence in nearly every country, that was not always so. How did the State department prioritize back when it had a smaller budget? What were the old pre-cold war US embassies like?

I know this a broad question, but I'm interested in the differences between get a steak today to say the start of 20th century.

Were the steak more expensive? more limited in place (e.g. only near farms)? more cooked? etc...

Many people on the internet, who happen to be communists, have told me that all the historical moments that I've listed in the tile are all fabrications. I'm a bit skeptical and feel like they're synonymous with holocaust denial. Are these fabrications?

EDIT: Concentration camps

The reason I ask is that in researching George Wallace, he seemed to be a big spender in terms of government. He used his influence to bring corporations to Alabama. He built a better junior college system and a few other things which seem quite progressive. So were those white supremacist politicians basically just supporters of big government for white people?

Because I've been looking for the 2nd Army's patch and I can't find it ANYWHERE.

In the 1950s, the United States was paranoid about everything that even resembled Communism. This can even be felt today with many Americans decrying things they don't like as Socialism. This paranoia is attributed to the threat of the Soviet Union. My question is: why didn't this occur in Western Europe? Not only were they also facing the Soviet Union, but they were much closer/bordering the Warsaw Pact.

This question came up listening to Dan Carlin's "Death Throes of the Republic", I was interested in how the ancient Romans (and similar societies) secured their communications.

Two particular aspects come to mind:

• Military/Government orders: how did politicians and soldiers in the field ensure orders were authentic? For example When the Senate sent an envoy to relieve Sulla of his command in ~88 BCE, how did Sulla know this was authentic, and not a secret plot by enemies to strip him of his army?

• Private correspondence: How was a prominent citizen like Cicero confident enough to include his most private thoughts in some letters, information which would be dangerous in the wrong hands?

Why not Breckenridge or Bell?

Typically, Byzantine Greek names such as these are translated into an intelligible English approximation (for example, Palaiologos = "old word"/"ragman" or Choniates = "from Chonai"), but I'm having some trouble with this one. I can't seem to find a modern source who provides a scholarly rendering, all of my references are oddly silent. I mean, it can't possibly mean "cabbage dragon". There has to be some other less literal meaning that I'm missing.

For example, during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, did it take weeks/months for the British crown to learn the outcome of key battles?

Recently i was watching black lagoon, in which they board a german sub that was immobilised on the seabed at a depth of 60metres for a peroid of 50 years or so. There was no hull damage and the depth was not too great to cause implosion. Have there ever been real life examples of lost subs being discovered with an atmosphere (albeit toxic) inside?

Jude law: Black Sea, another film with a sub in a similar condition

Lets say it is the 17th century and I want to buy some paper. Am I most likely buying loose leaf paper or paper in a blank book or a scroll? Also when I go to my paper guy is he making it in the back of his shop or buying it from centralized producers? If I am buying loose leaf paper are there precursors to three ring binders? Can you give me an idea about how expensive paper would be?

Thanks

The Reconquista ended in 1492. Why didn't Spain bother to push it further into Africa?

It seems more logical to have a $25 bill than a $20 bill.

And by entering the country I mean the men aboard the ships make it to land and unload their supplies etc.

I've recently watched Quentin Tarantino's Hateful Eight a few times, and from the UK I have always been fascinated by the Civil War in America. The one thing about the film that made me think was where a confederate general was still in his uniform and the person confronting him were in conversation about the civil war etc. If you have seen the film you should know where I'm coming from.

Even if you haven't seen the film, my question (as stated in the post) is that; has there been any true accounts of confederate officials using their position in the war for either self gain/or straight up respect, even though they lost? Was there any side effects to that? Were the Union tolerable to confederates, kind of (and apologies for not using academic terms) "flaunting" their rank even though they were confederates?

I'm not sure if I have phrased this the best way, but at the very least I would be very thankful if somebody could put me in the direction of a book that focuses on the specific aftermath of confederate soldiers and how they tried to either use or integrate their rank into the Union.

Thanks again, Ross

I apologize if this is a weirdly specific and obscure question, but I'm currently building a model of the USS Missouri, and one thing that caught my attention was the sheer number of medium sized gun batteries it had (bigger than anti-aircraft caliber, smaller than its main armament).

Having built a few other models as well (USS Arizona, Yamato, etc) it seems like battleship designers were constantly trying to pack in as much armament as possible on these ships, but it seems to me that anything smaller than the main armament which wasn't useful against aircraft seems to have no purpose.

Considering the sheer range of the main armament, it seems to me that the battleships would be engaging at close to maximum visual range with their main armament, and would probably never get close enough to give a "broadside" of 5 inchers for example. Also the fact that doctrine had smaller ships screening the battleships makes me feel like these batteries were probably never used.

What was the purpose of these batteries and were they ever used to good effect in combat?

*Similar questions posted before, but never got definitive answers.

So I decided to make a series of mostly 18th-century historical fiction stories involving how North America was colonized so much over the majority of the 1700's. It will also involve a lot of alternate history too (But not too alternate! It will stay accurate to the timeline!)

This first story begins in the final years of the Queen Anne's War (1711-13, or 14? Not really sure when it really ended) and the settings take place in the West Indies, majoring around The Bahamas, Cuba, Jamaica, and Saint Domingue. I'll give you the gist of my story so you can understand what it's about; the protagonists are Pirates who struggle to survive their way of life, by expanding their Pirate's Republic (this is the alternate history part, where Pirates were a much stronger force than they really were). The main antagonists are part of the British, Spanish, and French empires that also battle for control over the islands I mentioned while at the same time want to destroy the Pirate's Republic.

Now here's the part I need help with

I know that the European part of this war was called the Spanish War of Succession. I know that England, Spain, France, Portugal and The Netherlands had their navies battling each other in Europe.

Now to The Big Question, with the answer I really need

If Britain, Spain, and France were able to colonize the Carribean, establish settlements, AND have navies there...did the Portuguese and the Dutch at least send their navies' ships to the West Indies? (around the Islands I mentioned)?

They may not have established any settlements there, I'm assuming, but did they send any ships to fight near these islands?

Why am I asking this? This is a crucial part of my story, with or without it, it will alter the entire plot, so I really need help with this.

I thank anyone so much who is able to answer this.

EDIT: Really need help with this.

Are there clear examples of socialism succeeding in smaller nations and failing in large ones? There are a few obvious ones that come to mind, but I was hoping for an expert.

I've just watched Jack Strong and it's made me wonder, what was the average Poles opinion of the Russians during the cold war? and what if any pushback was there at a higher level from the Poles. We're always sort of sold this story that during the cold war the Warsaw pact nations were a solid group, but clearly that is not true.

Compared to other viking lands, North America was extremely fertile. Also, why didn't word of the New World spread throughout Europe, like it did when Christopher Columbus re-discovered it in the 1500s?

By asking why I'm not implying it's a bad thing but there must be a reason why it was Sweden and not e.g Portugal, right?