[deleted]

Did they call it a period or monthies or a visitor or did they have terms that have fallen out of use? I did a search before posting but apologies if this has been covered.

Help would really be appreciated. I am extremely ignorant on Yugoslavia and the conflicts after the breakup. I am looking for books explaining about pre/post yugoslavia. I am really interested in this subject, please help me out!!

Thanks in advance

Seeming as how the black pete controversy is heating up again I just started wondering how blackface was portrayed outside of the US.

The way I see it, America got huge support from a couple of European countries, but in documentaries this is always downplayed and the focus is on the bravery of the american milita.

EDIT: Stupid me didnt even specify what war. I mean of course the american revolutionary way.

By measure of Nominal GDP, it goes: USA, China, Japan, Germany- of which only USA, Japan, Germany have large GDPs relative to their population size.

Also am I wrong in thinking that, in the case of Germany, the East/West partition hindered their economic development?

If it is linked to massive industrialisation from WW2, why is the UK not similarly affected?

Did they just submit to a cultural shift, or where they killed?

By this I mean sleight of hand tricks or illusions. Not people claiming to be wizards.

During the Crimean War I understand that the Tsars army was hampered by their limited ability to transfer reinforcements, strangling bureaucracy that stifled flexibility on the part of Russian generals, and technological handicaps with the Russian Army armed more or less the same as it was during the Napoleonic era, with flintlock smoothbore muskets and limited ammunition and encouraging the bayonet over the bullet. Meanwhile British and French forces were using rifles firing Minie balls and were much more able to move troops and supplies around. Despite this the Russians seemed to put up a helluva fight and inflicted some horrendous losses on the Allies. Why? Given the substantial advantages the Allies seemed to have had, why wasn't it more of a sweeping victory for them?

From what I could find out, there was a failed plan (Operation Pastorius) that identified two targets of interest for sabotage in Altoona, PA: The Horseshoe Curve, and the PA Railroad's repair shops near Altoona, PA.

1. Did Nazi Germany learn of these targets through Nazi sympathizers in Altoona?

2. If they didn't acquire intel that way, how would they have learned about the tactical significance of these areas? The population of the area wasn't large at the time (80k?) and I can't imagine someone from another country having interest in a place like Altoona without some sort of prompt from someone else. It also contained a notable German population at the time - which prompts the question I raised in the title.

[deleted]

Five of the six Republican presidential wins between 1954 and 1994 were landslides in the Electoral College and healthy wins in the popular vote. Yet in that period, the party lost 20 consecutive House elections to the Democrats and won a Senate majority only three times.

FPTP doesn't seem to be a factor given FPTP is used for presidential races too using the same boundaries as the Senate, and inequitable House boundaries/gerrymandering doesn't seem to account for the massive differences in vote-shares.

Sometimes the gap could be huge; Nixon beat McGovern 61% - 38% in 1972, but lost the House race 47% - 52% to the Democrats, polling 14 points above his party. Likewise, Reagan's 59% in 1984 translated into just 47% in the House and 49% in the Senate.

How have political historians and historically-minded political scientists interpreted this phenomenon of sometimes enormously divergent voting patterns, either in general or in specific election years?

[deleted]

What type of music would the caliph have enjoyed? Or rather, master of the Treasury Al-Mansur? Would there have been sorts of Guitar-like instruments? I have no background knowledge on musical instrument history to be honest.

American college senior here, I was wondering what my British life would have been like 150 years ago. If I were a young man at the time, ready to enter college and wanting to become an engineer, what options would be available to me post-graduation? What schools would I be trying to get admitted to? What were lucrative and cutting edge places to work at the time? I'm also curious about the university and R&D culture at the time. Anything you can share would be appreciated, thanks!

In the first Back to the Future movie there is a famous exchange where Brown, not believing that Marty McFly is from the future, asks him who is president of the United States in 1985. Marty McFly answers correctly that Ronald Reagan is president, and the Doc is incredulous, calling Reagan "the actor." Now it is certainly true that Ronald Reagan was an actor prior to his political career, but my impression is that he was not exactly an A-list celebrity. The only movie of his that I've seen is Knute Rockne, All American, and it doesn't seem to be one that is well known. So I wonder if a typical American (keep in mind that Brown is a scientist and probably has only a cursory interest in movies) in 1955 would even have been aware of him, because it seems to me that the joke only works if we have the benefit of hindsight. Like, maybe if Back to the Future took place in 2015 McFly might travel back to 1985 and inform an incredulous Doc Brown that Barack Obama "the community organizer" is president, but of course Obama was unknown in 1985 and his past life as a community organizer only became common knowledge because he is now president.

My understanding is that the Gauls didn't even have rights of citizenship until Claudius was emperor, which was about 100 years after the death of Julius Caesar. Is that correct?

When did Gauls and Celts have the ability to become senators?