If so is this what led to high usage of crack among black Americans in that era?

Recently I have been reading about Hitler's popularity and became intrigued by the high levels of support he faced before 1939. I have some awareness of the idea that Hitler's popularity fell during various points in WW2 following German failures, but I have found nearly no evidence to suggest that anyone in Germany in the years 1933-39 showed a dislike of Adolf Hitler. Of course there must be some evidence that shows a minority of people disliked Hitler, which is why I ask if there was any group of people or class who showed a dislike to Hitler or opposed Hitler before WW2 began.

I was thinking because there have been a lot of instances of two separate Countries forming unions, if two Dynasties would do something similar, or if one dynasty was trying to assert some kind of heritage/authority. Fictional ex. House of Premyslid-Hohenzollern

It's just as much eastern Africa's as it is India's.

So, I was reading something completely unrelated to the US earlier, but it made the point that in undemocratic, Pre-WW1 Europe it was the right to bear arms that distinguished people as citizens rather than the right to vote which I found interesting.

It seems that in the US this is something that has continued right up to this day, and is a big talking point over there with a lot of people thinking that the government is trying to "take away their guns". So, firstly why did this belief continue in the US to this day/why is the right to bear arms such a huge part of being a US citizen (to many people at least).

Finally, are there actually any examples of the US people using their right to bear arms to influence their government, or even rising against the government (however small)? Obviously excluding fighting against the British Empire, though I am assuming that that, as well as the civil war has a lot to do with it?

Thanks a lot.

If NATO considers Russia to be one of its biggest safety threats, wouldn't accepting it into the organization remove the threat without unnecessary conflicts and casualties?

Welcome to Monday Methods,

In the most restrictive and traditional sense, history is the study of written accounts of the past.

However, there has been a trend in the academy towards increasingly incorporating findings from Archaeology and Sociocultural Anthropology or even Art History to expand our understanding of the past.

Which brings us to today's topic of Material Culture. Broadly defined, it can be any of the materials or objects that is produced by a human culture, i.e. their art, buildings, pottery, clothing, weapons, and other things.

A few questions to get us started. How do historians/archaeologists interpret objects within their cultural context? Can historians and anthropologists be sure that their interpretations of the meanings of objects are accurate to the thoughts and meanings for the creator culture?

Next week's topic will be: Combining Activism and Academia

I was thinking about the old movie "Dave" and how ridiculous it was, but then I was thinking that as late as the 90s countries were still using impostors quite regularly.

Is there much we know about how long it's been a strategy, and when it was out of fashion among more advanced nations?

I'm trying to find out how long it took for infantry, knights, or mercenary groups to get ready for battle.

I'm interested in how long it would take simple warriors to equip their armor, and weapons before entering battle.

How long for a gambeson/padded armor? Maile? Plate style armors? And possibly even late Roman Lorica Segmentata styles.

The little information that I've seen varies widely. My google-fu failed me - as I'm finding information on how long it takes to equip armor for minecraft or runescape, or something from yahoo answers. Information that I don't find useful.

Thank you

How significant was WW2 as a factor (after the other post about America vs the German economy)

I understand France, Russia, Germany and especially Austria-Hungary but how were Britain responsible for Germany going into Belgium.

It's been bothering me, was it only rich upper class men who would be the only ones literate enough to write infantile sentences like "We have wet the bed. I admit, we were wrong, my host. If you ask ‘why?’ There was no chamber pot.”, and was the intended recievers of this "information" upper class or learned men? I guess I'm also kind of asking how literate the population of roman cities like Herculaneum and Pompeji ind the first century a.d?

Is there any evidence that the holocaust did, or didn't, happen?