After World War I, military theorists on both sides tried to solve the riddle of the trenches, so they could bring maneuver warfare back to the battlefield. WWI saw the first use of tanks, airplanes, machine guns, radios/telephone, accurate and quick firing artillery, and poison gas. However, the United States didn't seem to learn from its experience in World War I and capitalize on these new inventions while Germany did. For example, Germany rearmed and had good tanks, planes and so on in WWII, as well as tactics adapted their weapons and the mission. The US did none of this. What impeded innovation?

Hi, I am looking for books on military equipment in ww2. more specifically In looking for books that go into detail on aircraft that was designed but never used or only saw limited use in the last days of the war. things like the Wunderwaffe, helicopters and jet aircraft.

also I was looking for some books about just general military equipment in ww2 the ships, aircraft, land equipment I would love books on any of it from all sides. and finally If there were any books on the structures of the armed forces on all levels (platoon, company all the way to division and above). thank you.

(PS i hope a submission like this is allowed if not i'm sorry)

France supported the US during their war for independence from Britain, but that UK now holds the above-mentioned title. Does this hinge on the technicality that America wasn't yet a country? Is it revisionism? Is it something else?

I also have another question: Who would hold more rank? A cavalryman of private or an NCO of infantry? I'm aware that cavalrymen were almost always selected from the middle and uppermiddle classes (since the British and other nations could choose to do this), and prestige took a man a long way 200+ years back. This makes me curious as to whom would be more in command on the social scale.

The kinds of drugs such as Methamphetamine, crack cocaine, heroin and LSD. When did people find the chemicals and stuff inside of these drugs to make them? Where did people go to get the chemicals and other substances to create these drugs?

For example during the world war with all the sunken merchant ships which I'm assuming where owned by private companies were shot down who assumed the cost of the lost property? Was it the government or the owning company. If it was the company why would companies be willing to lose that much money (I know patriotic spirit and all that, but still.)

I've been doing some research on the period and the range of estimates for Kingdom of England range between 2 million to 3.7 million, while the estimates for the Kingdom of France range from 15 million to 18 million. Even in the best case scenario, that means England had a quarter of France's population. Similarly, most sources portray France as a wealthier country at the time.

Given these large disparities, it would appear like England shouldn't have stood even the remotest chance in the war, yet but for the death of Henry V, they would have won. What's the explanation behind this? A partial explanation I've heard is that the nascent English state was capable of extracting more taxes to pay for larger armies as a proportion of their population than the French, but this doesn't seem a significant enough difference. Does anyone else know any answers, or have any good books to read that tackle this question?

I wanted to read about the Nurnberg trials in-depth for quite some time so was wondering what you guys think is the best book to start with or the best book on the subject?

Additionally, have any serious revelations been gleaned from comparing it and now extinct European pagan traditions? I know that there's this concept within Hinduism, I don't remember its name, that one can become so like a given deity that they're considered a sort of avatar. Ignoring my horrible butchering of the concept, is that found in any other similar belief systems?

Edit: This WAS a final question. I missed some points on this question and my professor did not specify exactly what I missed so I am just looking for more thoughts.

Edit: What I put: There were several causes of the Great Schism on both the political and religious side. Looking at it from the political side, the major change was the splitting of the Roman Empire in the 400s AD. After this split the western empire and eastern empire drifted apart and became more and more different in aspects such as politics, culture, and views of the church. When looking at it from the religious side, there were a few major disagreements between the split empire. One of the most important was the "filioque" controversy regarding the Nicene Creed. The Creed originally stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father. The Roman church added the word "filioque" which changed the Creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.

Something I have been curious to learn a little bit more about for a while now, saw them mentioned in another topic and since it's 'Prose and Poetry' week thought I'd ask.

So what can you tell me about them? I know a little bit, but I'd be interested in literally anything so for all intents and purposes you may assume I know nothing at all. What sort of poetry would they have wrote? Are there any famous examples? One thing I specifically wondered is how the dismantling of the 'class' system of Gaelic Ireland affected these poets, since they occupied an important position in society, what happened to them after? Did the poetic tradition still survive and have an impact on later traditions such as aislings?

Thanks.

edit: I guess italicization doesn't work in titles, oh well.

With the power of barons and upper class people there must have been those in power accused of heretical beliefs who decided to end their "accusers" quietly,if so please post a link below or tell me yourself.

[deleted]

I am 20-something year old from Serbia, and from the talks from my elders I get the story that Tito was some heroic figure back in the SFRY, but then again he on some articles on Wiki I have read that he was great Leader beloved by nation, but on the other hand he was a dictator. And have gained a mixed feeling about him.

The main question is this: Was it really that great in SFRY under his rule? Was he a good guy or the bad one? And why did SFRY breakup "shortly" after his death?

Thank's in advance to all who replies! Cheers :)

Excluding the Zionist movement and the establishment of the state of Israel, has the United States been the primary culprit in destabilizing the Middle East since the 1950s? Thanks for your response!

I've often heard that the Treaty of Nanking was the first unequal treaty. I don't fully understand this definition. Aren't all treaties inherently unequal since the winner gains more than the loser?

Did people in the the 1950s in America say they wished they lived in the roaring 20s? Or is this a more modern phenomenon?

Looking to learn more about this specific even in the history of the Poland, about how much was destroyed and how much was taken. Can't really find anything relevant in the Books and resource list and wanted advice on what sources to look at and which to steer clear of.

Thanks in advance.