According to Anthony Tucker-Jones' 2015 book on the T-34, the Russian crew simply called their tanks Prinadlezhit-Chetverki, which meant Thirty-Four. But Prinadlezhit doesn't mean Thirty in Russian, from what I gather. So is this some sort of confusion that ended up in Jones' book, or what am I missing?

Hi all! As a younger lad i always remember my history teaching saying that redheads were actually scandanavian in origin and brough to the british isle through yhe viking raids. However, ive been debating this with family who state they recently went to norway and saw no or few redheads suggesting the gene must have originated in ireland. A quick google search suggests that the redhead gene may actually be Celtic. Im now confused and thought there may be one of you fone historians which could shed light on the topic? Celtic or scandanvian? Where did gingers originate? Thanks all :)

I don't know much about the history of instabilities in the Middle East post WWII (I presume that's when a lot happened), and would like to understand how the interventions of the US or other foreign powers along with internal tribal struggles shaped the region into what it is today. What book or number of books would give me good coverage into understanding the situation? More specifically Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia more than the Palestine/Isreali conflict....

Edit: I'm guessing I should get a good understanding of Shiite/Sunni conflict also?

In recent light of Saudi Arabia and Iran breaking off diplomatic ties I am wondering what happened to diplomats that were in enemy capitals during WWII. What happened to the Japanese diplomats in D.C. after the Pearl Harbor attack? What happened to the German diplomatic staff in Moscow when Germany attacked? What happened to the Soviet diplomats in Berlin in 1941? Were ambassadors and diplomats treated with care or with vindictiveness?

I am preparing a presentation for my class (English class, I live in Turkey, so the only lesson thats English here is English itself)

My presentation title is South America and I chose to write about the history of South America.

What I will state is a brief summary of South America and Europe, why did the Age of Exploration happen and what happened in South America afterwards.

What I have is:

• The Arabs held down the main routes to India, blocking most of European traders from going there in order to scam them and profit.
• The Portugese traveled around the continent of Africa and got to India and blocked all other civilizations from going there in order to resell those goods back in Europe.
• The Spanish got sick of this so they believed by traveling in a straight line they would get to India, but instead they landed on Americas; Bahamas more precisely, which they believed was India.
• I know that the Spanish destroyed the Incans, Aztecs and Mayans; the 3 civilizations that were in South America back then, but what I don't know which one of them did they encounter first.
• The Spanish was intrested in how those natives built their temples and such without any 'modern' technology. They enslaved the population, used them to mine ores and more.
• I have no idea what did the Portugese, French and the Dutch did in South America and I need some information on it.

If you all can help me fill in some gaps since I haven't took Age of Exploration since 8th grade. I moved from Egypt to Turkey at 9th grade and I am here for 3 years, learning about Turkish history and Republic Era so I can't remember what I learnt back in 8th grade.

I know this might be a bit of a wrong place or I am requesting too much but I need help since most of my papers from Egypt got lost or destroyed when I was moving back to Turkey; this includes essays, hand-outs and such.

It would be great if the commentator cited their sources aswell.

Hi, I've finished Daston and Galison’s Objectivity and it awoke my interest in scientific illustrations. In particular how those works of art influenced culture outside of science or what 'sort of relationships' between people and those illustrations existed in this period (~1750 to ~1850).

The first time I've asked this question, /u/mizzamir suggested

• Nancy Leys Stepan, "Picturing Tropical Nature"
• Mary Louise Pratt, "Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation"
• Laura Dassow Walls, "The Passage to Cosmos: Alexander von Humboldt and the Shaping of America"

Can anyone extend or comment this short reading list, or could point me in the right direction? Ty in advance.

What kind of recourse is available if any? Are there any civil authorities I can go to? What happens?

I'm specially interested about the modification of the settlements and society organization at the passage from paleolithic to neolithic.

I have no academic background in history and no access to a university library, so i'm looking for books that can be bought for a reasonable price (less than 100$, lower will be best)

This might be a strange question, but it seemed odd that there were 7 wars consisting of coalitions (made up largely of the same main powers) against France between the 1790s and 1815. Why were coalitions formed multiple times even though they were being defeated by Napoleon consistently until around 1810? Why did moral stay strong against France?

So, thinking about the antebellum south why did they go to full on rebellion to maintain slavery? They could have easily transitioned the blacks to indentured servitude or simply kept rates so low that generally they suffered a very small hit to the bottom line.

The plantation was something that only had to compete with other plantations, the Share croppers and poor southern farmers were no real threat even if they had to pay labor as they'd have paid them next to nothing or used debt slavery to simply force a new kind of system into existence. The Company Town model of the coal industry could have effected the same conditions as a plantation.

Was it simply a cultural issue? Did the Plantation holder need the distinction of the Slave vs Free to keep the poor white farmer in line politically? I just dont see how the idea of an expensive, chaotic, and problematic war makes more sense than simply changing the form of slavery.

Was the idea of reparations something widely considered? If anyone has a decent idea behind the primary question I'd be very happy.

Recently I've been reading about the Treaty of Turin (1860) between Italy and France. In this treaty, Savoy and Nice were annexed into France from the Kingdom of Sardinia. I have several questions about the treaty and its effects today:

a) Why only Savoy and Nice?

b) Were these regions mostly french-speaking/french-populated?

c) Borders don't always reflect the ethnicities of people living in the area, so in 1860 which areas were predominately Italian and which areas were predominately French?

d) How much were these regions changed by 1996?

e) What is the true cultural border between France and Italy? When I look at a modern ethnic map of Europe, it always strikes me that everything west of the northern Italian border is 100% French, as if the extent of the French-inhabited areas stop there; vice versa for Italian-speaking areas.

I'm looking for mainly something to listen to as I have too many books to read as it is. What are some really good ones?

[deleted]

I frequently hear people say seemingly ridiculous statements like "it took on average 20 shermans to kill a Tiger II and 10 to kill a panther." Is there actual historical facts to back this up? If not what were the actual K/D ratios of these much romanticized German cats.

Reading about Slavery in British North America and then in the United States, I have read about maroon communities in the Great Dismal Swamp of Virginia, and also elsewhere in the South. Leaving aside Florida, which seems like its own case, just how stable and long-lasting were larger maroon communities in the Great Dismal Swamp and elsewhere?

It's 1814 and the War of 1812 just ended without the reclamation of the North American colonies by Britain.

Fast forward to World War I a century later. US and Britain are allies against Germany.

Was there a specific point at which the British said "OK fine, you win, let's be friends" or did relations thaw over the course of a century, leading to the UK and US' statuses as each other's closest ally?