Why was it so necessary to open the 2nd Front in France? Why not just invade Spain or march North from Africa, the Middle East and Italy?

History seems to present the popular understanding of the doctrine as gospel. We launch, then they launch (or vice versa), and the entire world enters a period of nuclear winter. The vast majority of earth's human population dies, etc...

Is this really what a bilateral attack would have meant? Was that, historically, the genuine thought of policy makers? Or was the idea something more like, "every US and Soviet city over x-population would be destroyed, a lot of people would die, but the world would go on. Both countries would lose their positions as superpowers"?

For instance, could a Kansas farmer with sufficient land for diverse crops, and water access, have hypothetically been able to survive and provide for his family after a nuclear holocaust?

As someone who wanted to join the military, but who couldn't becasue I didn't meet all the requirements, it seems a little strange to me how people could be conscripted if they really didn't want to go.

The military has all sorts of standards that are unknown in civilian life - rules against tatoos, flat feet, other physical and mental health standards, no criminal records (even minor), rules against homosexuality until recently.

Surely it would be pretty easy to just not meet one of these many standards if you really didn't want to be sent to fight?

In the past, you seem to have had kings fightinging and dying in battle (like Harold in 1066). You also had them personally take command of armies.

But this doesn't happened these days.

When was the last time it happened? (And I suppose there are debates over where the line is drawn as to what exactly counts as commanding a battle etc. - obviously, heads of state/government still control warfare)

As i understand it black ink was invented way before blue ink and it's also cheaper, so why is it, at least in the west, that we use blue ink instead of black?

Also, what was the state of China in the early-late 1700s? What changed in China when the industrial revolution was in swing? Cheers

So I am doing my undergrad research paper on the Boston Massacre, and I am using LH Butterfield & Hiller Zobel's book The Legal Papers of John Adams. They cited a source called "Anonymous summary of crown evidence". It is in PRO C.O. 5:759, p. 711-720. Originally an enclosure in Hutchinson to Hillsbourough, 20 Nov. 1770. So I have uncovered that PRO C.O. stands for the Public Records Office, Colonial Office. That is where I have hit a wall. After searching google for the source cited, I keep getting the Legal Papers, with no one actually finding the original source. Please help guys!

Were they above the law in their own countries?

Could they do whatever they wanted within their own lands?

What actually gave them their power?

How might power did they have over individuals?

How much power did they have over their own states?

I know that he dedicated the song to her rather last-minute, but I'm wondering how good she was with the piano.

During the opening months of world war 1 the fighting was mobile as the Germans pushed through Belgium and into France. Then were pushed back at the battle of the Marne. I was wondering how soldiers were deployed in this stage of the war? Did they still use tactics like moving up as a line, shoot and charge? How did they advance and take positions, especially when up against machine guns? Also how was artillery used to support infantry when things were constantly in motion?

Thank you for your time.

During the mid to late 19th century wars forts seemed to have been effective still but by the start of WW1 they seem obselete, which weapon/tactic/technology caused this? Was it breech loading artillery with high caliber or armour piercing shells? I heard that Hitler's gigantic railway guns were designed to be fired on the fortifications of the maginot line.

As far a I know, it's a bit inaccurate to think of Spain having always been "Spanish". Even today, there are many different languages and cultural subgroups like in Valencia, Catalunya, Andalusia, Galicia, the Basque region, etc other than the "standard" Castillian culture and language. One can assume that back during the colonial era, these differences were even greater. So my question is, did the regions settled by Spain become influenced in culture by those who came over from Spain, and can we see these influences today? Or were most colonists Castillian in origin or am I totally totally off base about Spanish culture(s)?

I'm working on documenting the lives of a few great men throughout history and the first on my list is Cato the Younger. I know and have read through Plutarch's life of Cato the Younger, and I was wondering if you all knew of any other classical sources that might shed light on the life of the man. I really appreciate the help and I love the sub! Thanks, guys.

Not sure if 'roof' is the proper term when talking about boats/ships.

When you google "longships", 9/10 images show longships without roofs. Were the Vikings really so though that they skipped creating any form of protection from big waves, wind, and rain on their ships?

I've been conditioned to imagine the "barbarian" tribes and civilizations as very primitive. How should I actually view them? Did they have a modern system of government at the time? Were they similar to Rome at all? Why did they constantly lose to Rome? Was it because they were actually years and years behind Rome in terms of technology or simply because of bad leadership? Was their culture seen as extremely primitive and if so, was it actually?

The time frame im looking for is between 55 BCE and 400 CE.

From what I understand, the US emerged as a world superpower after World War II in part because the war wasn't fought on the U.S. mainland, so it's infrastructure remained largely intact.

The same can't be said for other two allied superpowers, the USSR and the British Empire. Both nations were devastated in the war, but following the surrender of Germany and Japan, the USSR seemed to recover quite quickly whereas Britain's empire declined.

Given the enormous losses by the USSR (including the deaths from the Great Purge), how were the Soviets able to retain such a vast global influence when the British couldn't?

Thanks for any answers.