I know a little about why they started such as new and better equipment (compass and maps) while traveling but i still can not find a reason why they stopped in the 1700's.

Thanks for any answers!

I keep stumbling upon people who uphold the myth of the "Clean Wehrmacht" or believe in a fully evil Wehrmacht, and everything in between, which makes me wonder... Just how much of the Wehrmacht was dirty?

I found this:

Particularly grim reading are the responses to the 19 August 1946 "German attitude scale" survey: 37 % agreed that "the extermination of the Jews and Poles and other non-Aryan races was necessary for the security of Germany", 33% that "Jews should not have the same rights as those belonging to the Aryan race"

If that is to be believed, cca 40% of the German population wanted to kill the "Untermensch", cca 30% didn't want to kill them, but thought they were inferior regardless, so the rest aprox 30% were probably "moderates".

Are these percentages accurate? If they apply to the German population, can they be applied to the Wehrmacht in particular as well? What is the accepted historical standpoint about all of it today?

Since Manifest Destiny was the belief that the US was the best country in the world and that God wanted the Americans to take control of the whole continent spreading democracy, was there any movement among Americans to try and incorporate Britain's North American holdings into the US?

I guess what I'm interested in is both how the average person on the street justified it to their neighbours but also how a politician or a news presenter justified it.

On a TV show when they did 'balance' between two interviewees what did the segregationist say?

It's something that seems obviously wrong now but perhaps at the time was more of dilemma? I'm hoping to use this to understand if we have some dilemmas now that will, one day, be obvious and others will struggle to understand what the conversation was even about.

Thanks in advance.

With the benefit of hindsight, is there a moment in history that we can now look at and say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it was the moment Germany had truly lost. I am assuming that this would be a point well before the war was declared over. Was it some decision made, some key position lost?

I've been reading about how the British empire came about, and along the way, I've noticed sources just seem to switch from talking about the East India Trading to talking about the British in general. Was it the British empire, or the East India Trading Company's empire? Surely a merchant company didn't just decide to conquer the world.

Between 1500 and 1800 Europeans started colonies all over the east coast of North America, and both sides of South America, so why didn't they seem interested in what is now the west coast of Canada and the U.S. until James Cook in the 1770s? I know, Francis Drake and others did travel there, but you don't see Europeans building colonies anywhere north of southern California during this period. Was it because it was too hard to get there (no Panama Canal)? Did the area seem overcrowded with native Americans? Or was the geography less appealing than the east coast, with all the mountains and snow and such? I've been to B.C. and it seems like a pretty sweet place to settle if you ask me...

Did it really have any effects outside of France?

I know that some of the land was acquired by conquest, but it seems as though if the settlers showed up and started killing the Natives and claiming land, the Natives would have rose up early and there would be a lot of stories about the battles with the Natives. Also, there wasn't a lot of people that could be carried on the early trips, let alone weapons.

Anther question is how were the property divisions assigned. Like the French had a huge amount of land that they ended up giving to the Spanish and English. Why didn't the French just say they held everything to the West Coast and jack up the price to the Americans?

Popular history attributes the fall of classical greek and roman civilization to the barbarians, such as the Visigoths. However, some have claimed that the core of that civilization was still functional when Islam rose out of the Arabian peninsula. Islamic rule took over trade routes, and dominated the Mediterranean for centuries. This virtually shut down shipping and trade routes in and out of Europe from 700 to 1400, including the Silk trade route to china. To what extent is this view of history factual ? I realize that the "Dark ages" themselves are a misnomer, as many trades and skills flourished. However, the pace of thought and innovation seemed to suffer a 700 set back during the dominance of Islam. I would like to know how much of this is coincidence or causal.

The Soviets had accomplished almost all of the previous space "firsts" but the US eventually caught up and took the lead. What were the main contributing factors to that shift?

The theory itself

Discussing the fanaticism among Japanese civilians and soldiers (kamikaze attacks, children taught how to sharpen bamboo spears and charge at Allied soldiers), how much they worshipped Hirohito, is widespread among the English-speaking internet. I'd like to know if any Japanese or Japanese-speaking historians have touched on the subject.

Hello- I've got a simple question. (Sorry if it's been asked before.)

What did Italians- or, rather, the people living in Italy at the time- consider themselves, between the fall of Rome and the unification of Italy? It's a wide timespan that I don't know much about.

Did people consider themselves as, i.e., Genoese/Neapolitan/Venetian, or did they think of themselves as Italians; or was there some other identity?

In other words, what was the ethnicity at the time?

Thanks in advance for the help!

[deleted]

What was the time period between Bleeding Kansas and the Civil War like? Is it true that the Kansas-Nebraska act was the final reason expansion pushed America to Civil War?

Obviously the show is fictional and the unit is unique in it's dysfunctionality.

My question is, is it true to real life? Were Army doctors (the doctors in mash are draftees) given some leeway in terms of military discipline?

In I. M. Diakonoff's The Rise of the Despotic State in Ancient Mesopotamia (1956), I encountered the term sag-sug or sa^12 - tu^18 in the context of a list of aristocratic class-constituents in Sumer. The author doesn't clarify its meaning, and I'm having difficulty finding it in the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Project.

Does anyone here know what it means?

And by Ænglisc I mean Old English, in England.