There is a well known and long standing American tradition of disliking government intervention in domestic affairs. Calling it anarchic or libertarian, however, seems an error since both are mid-19th century ideas while this tradition stretches further back. Libertarianism and other ideologies seem to simply give theoretical articulation to long held beliefs.

Is there an accepted term within historiography for this opposition to big government among Americans?

Sparta won a war against Athens, Corinth, Argos, and Thebes leading the Boeotian League.

15 years later it was losing one against Athens and a new and much reduced Boeotian League that was initially Thebes itself, that they had to call for a peace conference.

What changed?

During the WW2, the US dropped a nuclear bomb on Nagasaki. Most places say that over 70 000 civilians were killed in Nagasaki. However, many of the civilians worked in the arms factories in the city, so although they are non-combatants, should they really be considered civilians?

I need this to help justify the dropping of the nuclear bombs in my essay, so any help would be appreciated!

You never really hear about the Soviet Union doing anything in WWII pre-Barbarossa, so did they have any direct conflicts with the Allies?

I have about 90 letters written by Admiral M P Lazarev to an ancestor of mine. Lazarev was the commander of the Black Sea Fleet at the time and was overseeing the construction of navy docks and buildings at Sevastopol at that time. My ancestor was in charge of many projects including the building of the huge dry docks in Sevastopol.

The letters speak about the decisions made, materials chosen, the layout of roads, placement of important buildings and removal of others etc.

I believe they may be very interesting to someone studying the building and fortification of Sevastopol in the years before the Crimean War. I am just not sure how to get into contact with an appropriate person such as this.

Any thoughts?

If so, why haven't they started using Anglican after 200+ years and good relations with the UK?

Why did Hitler use this as a synonym for "white".

I've heard it's a Persian word.

I'm currently reading a book on WWI and came across a short passage about an agreement between Russia and France, that reminded of Germany's blanque cheque to Austria.

Here's my translation of the passge:

In march 1912 Poincaré [French foreign minister] ensured former Russian foreign minister and ambassador of Russia in Paris, Iswolski, that France made no differentiation between a local conflict on the Balkan and its superordinate strategic interests. Thereby Paris bound itself to the development in the crisis region and lost its ability to have an restraining influence on Russia. The French side was aware of the fact, that any crisis on the Balkan could lead to a conflict between Russia and Austria-Hungary and thereby trigger the German-Austrian pact and in return the French-Russian alliance.

Jön Leonhard (2014): Die Büchse der Pandora - Geschichte des Ersten Weltkriegs.- C.H. Beck.- 5. edition .- p.63; own translation from German

How could they create them and how accurate were they ?

In the example of Europe.

Also, did it only originate from one area, or was it more of a confluence?

I posted a similar question a few hours ago but decided to delete and rephrase it slightly after some research. As I'm looking to do some extensive research into this topic, please could you provide sources and any other reading you'd suggest. Thanks guys!

I know it was restructuring, from elections to the economy, but in what sort of ways was this done? Thanks

It seems like Wilson put Germany in a lose-lose situation by forcing their hand with the Sussex Pledge while outright supporting the German enemies with ammunition AND financial support. The US also supported the Allied Naval Blockade of Germany and even after receiving a notice that the Germans will resume submarine activity they CONTINUED with the actions of supporting both the blockade and the Allies with ammunition and money. Keep in mind this is a time where ammunition was being extinguished at an unthinkable rate and people are dying at an unimaginable pace on all sides. All the moves seem rather manipulative. I would like some higher educated insight on the topic, if anybody is willing. Thank you in advance.

Specifically interested in hearing about artillery and casualties of gunners but I decided to keep the question broad.

I read about mutton all the time. Mutton chops, a saddle of mutton, a leg of mutton. I know that mutton is sheep meat, and there aren't a lot of flocks of sheep in my area, but is mutton not a thing any more?

I'm going to try this again with a better title.

I recently learned that before the right to do so was taken away from them, American colonial assemblies were financing expenditures by printing their own banknotes in their own currencies. There was a face value conversion to British pounds sterling that the colony would honor at tax time, but every time a series of notes was issued, they inflated and ultimately annoyed British holders of American debt.

Coming from the era of central banks, the whole idea of random assemblies just deciding to start printing their own currency seems wild, like Boulder city council deciding they can finance more open space purchases if only they print enough Boulder Bucks and call them legal tender. I'd be interested in any discussion on the subject, but questions that immediately come to mind are:

1. Where did this sort of monetary policy originate?

2. It seems that being redeemable at face value for a public debt everyone incurs (taxes) would act as a check on inflation unless they were habitually printing more than their revenue. Do we know how much they were putting into circulation?

3. Why wasn't Britain financing these wars etc. that the colonial assemblies printed the notes to pay for? How much of a factor was the restriction on printing money in the build up to the revolution?

[deleted]

There's a theory floating around on the internet that states the stairwells in medieval castles were narrow and curved clockwise deliberately to impede sword use.

According to it, if you're heading up the stairs, with a sword in your right hand, this design would limit your ability to swing swords.

This seems a bit odd, especially considering you can just stab people.

Is there any truth to this at all?