I saw an Alaska-flaired mod here and have an Alaska-flaired question here - a match made in heaven. Also I'm trying to get my alumni library card form printed and it just won't load, so I'm asking a question in hopes that my university-website-rage subsides.

Basically, question is as reads. Were there major Russian settlements in Alaska? Are they still there? Was Alaska run by a governor appointed by the Tsar?

[deleted]

Both countries were large, powerfull empires. However, from what I gather the British conquered much more land than the Dutch. I've heard and read that the Dutch preffered not to 'conquer' land but rather put up trade points and used locals or 'hired' forces from other places to exploit the natives.

Is there any truth to these claims? If so, why did the Dutch chose this policy and did it pay off? I can see how it might yield bigger profits in the short term but would in the long run damage their position among the colonial powers.

For example, in Nazi Germany and Communist countries, when other parties were banned, why was the concept of the central party still important? Wouldn't it have been the goal to get rid of the concept of political parties in order to legitimize that party's ideology as natural and the only game in town?

Like when the Nazis banned the opposition, why did the Nazi Party continue to function and have a concept of membership distinct from the notion of German citizenship, instead of being integrated into the government?

Or in the Soviet Union or China or North Korea, where the leader was/is the Chairman of the Communist Party; why even bother having a "party" when the state and government are literally custom built around that party's ideology? Why does this seem to be so common?

In a (strange) dinner table discussion, my brother is insisting that a driving cause behind the 1857 Indian Rebellion ('Sepoy Mutiny') was a rumour - one which was apparently discovered to be false - that cartridges supplied to Sepoy troops were made with a mix of cow and pig fat without the knowledge of said troops. With most Sepoys being either Muslim or Hindu, he states, this would be of great offence.

Frankly, I'm suspicious of this explanation. It seems far too convenient. He acknowledges other causes without elaborating, but I suspect that he greatly overstates the above rumour as a convenient explanation. (He is known for pro-Imperialist 'Teaaboo' views.)

Can you guys name good examples for combinations of history writing and International Relations theories?

This is quite a broad one I suppose and social standing and the period in history will be the biggest variables. How did or would bad eyesight have affected an otherwise healthy male in a hunter gatherer society vs a 16th century European royal and was there stigma attached in that case to use a couple of examples.

Also what were some early developments optometrist technology? Were any attempts at improving eyesight at a credible?

As someone whose eyesight went from perfect in childhood and most of my teens to becoming quite shortsighted after that, I know I'd have found it pretty difficult!

I assume organized parties were more suppressed. Did Europe simply have fewer newspapers?

We know that the KGB had spies and agents across the world, but did they use undercover agents to implant law enforcement specialists into criminal organizations within the USSR?

Or was organized crime not so organized back then?

What about other Socialist countries? There must've been some levels of mafia, vory v zakone, bratva, prison and gulag gangs or even political "criminals" that the law enforcement could fight better having someone on the inside. Or was government power so supreme that this was not very necessary?

If using undercover agents was never a police/local law enforcement tactic, when did it become one?

I'm piecing together the corporate history of an obscure company from the late 60s. Are there any records? IE public tax returns / registrant records / etc... that I can search online?

I don't think there could be a fair "Christian" analogy because names like "Christian", "Christ" or "Jesus" aren't even super common in the languages where they are more prevalent. Or would the equivalent be if a significant part of the Christian population was named with variations of those names? Is it a reflection of the hyper-religious culture of the Islamic world? It wouldn't be equivalent to just say that many common names in the Anglo/Christian world are derived from Biblical names because that is also a continuation of names that were just around during a previous historical time period. I'm talking specifically the name of one man/word "praise". I know there are countries with huge populations with massively common surnames but the frequency of Mohammad just seems unusually common.

I'm wondering if, given the all-or-nothing nature of nuclear warfare and the fact that systems weren't 100% reliable, the Soviets or US decided to point multiple missiles or bombers at the same location to ensure it wouldn't escape destruction. Especially in regards to major command and control locations like Moscow or DC.

Would non-Europeans typically be given any sort of treatment prior to the Geneva & Hague Conventions, or was a stick from a bayonet more likely?

I am curious what, if any, cultural, political, social and historical impact the Italian colonization and occupation of their former African colonies has had? Is there any cultural legacy left? Any and all replies are welcome!

I am curious how countries that were formed from the former Soviet Union decided to divvy up military equipment, manpower and generally how these countries formed their militaries backbone during their formative years.

Why didn't the English accent continue to be passed from parents to children as it seems to do now?

This is a question about the use of infantry support weapons in ww2. I have heard many descriptions about how infantry weapons such as the Thompson and BARs were issued in the squad in ww2. For instance, some say the Thompson was issued to the officers, etc. My father fought in the south Pacific in the Philippines. I once asked him this question and he reported that sub-machine guns and automatic weapons were rotated around the squad so that; if one man went down, the other could pick it up and not find it unfamiliar. Every man gained equal experience with each weapon. It was a very team oriented approach. Has anyone else heard of this?