...Rather than as just a way to get places?

The German Foreign Minister to the Japense foreign minister(March 1941):

"The tripartite pact had above all had the goal of frightening America, and of keeping it out of the war. America had to be prevented by all means from taking an active part in the war and from making its aid to England too effective. The capture of Singapore would perhaps be most likely to keep America out of the war because USA could scarcely risk sending its fleet into Japanese waters. Roosevelt would be in a very difficult position."

Could someone explain why America would be involved with Singapore and why did Japan not choose to attack Singapore?

How did we come to have such flat surfaces and precise machinery available to us? Mills, lathes, grinders, etc. All require very flat bearing surfaces to work, but how did we first get them?

I should clarify: I was hoping to learn about what type of method would be used. Any other method but by hand or through steadily advancing precision would be impossible

By modern safety standards, a Willys Jeep looks like an absolute death trap. How many soldiers died in simple car accidents during the war? How were families informed? Was it the standard "your son died in the line of duty"?

I don't really get what they did during this period. Muskets had a pointy end and square formations, making charging a costly endeavor. I do get that were good for reconnaissance.

I gather that the Allies were pretty hopeful about the success of D-Day, but if the landings had failed, or if they lost the Battle for Normandy, what were their alternative long-term options? Was there ever a possibility of surrender if Rommel had thrown them back into the sea, like Hitler thought, or was this just a desperate fantasy of his? Would the Allies have been able to attempt another landing somewhere else, or would they have been reduced to bombing Europe from the air while the Soviets rolled Germany up all by themselves?

And as a follow-up question - with the vicious bocage fighting, and failure to make the initial gains they had planned for, how close were the Allies to actually losing in Normandy? Did the Germans ever have a real chance of victory or was it just a matter of time as soon as the beachhead was established?

My area of expertise is everyday religion in the late medieval England, but I’ll take a stab at other questions too, though I’m pretty hopeless about royal history. I’m a professional historian with a doctorate in Medieval Studies, and I’ve been teaching college-level courses on the Middle Ages and Renaissance for over 30 years. I’m currently writing a book on everyday religion in the Middle Ages.

EDIT: I'm take a long dinners break but I'll eventually get around to the questions I've left unanswered. Thanks to all of you for raising such interesting questions. Questions like this always help me make sense of what I know (and don't know).

I hear it being mentioned here and there, although by no means in the primary discussions of news and elections.

Did the founding fathers foresee the waning of the states' rights and eventually the need for a senate? Was Senate abolition ever proposed during the drive for Direct Election of Senators? Did such a bill ever make it close to passing?

I've always had a casual interest in Norse mythology and I've decided to improve my knowledge, so if any of you could help me find some good books and sources that would be great.

Im a secondary school student currently doing a history A level ( for americans this is equivalent of last year of highschool) im very interested in doing a history degree. my teachers always talk about historiography and the study of history. i've never really understood it or its significance

So why should i care about historiography and what exactly is it ?

Some time ago I was reading a book and it have some refferences to byzantine tactical instructions and it speaks about the frankish knights and how terrible effective their charge is, but that the franks don't deal well with ambushes and can be out manouvered.

I didn't think that much of it before earlier today. I know that knights would be supperior to a common peasent because of his equipment, training and diet, but the byzantine have cataphracts which have more or less the same equipment and what would seem to be a pretty good military training and they are fighting muslims who also have acces to heavy armored cavalery with good training. So what is it that makes the frankish charge so effective?

As Foch said in 1914: ''"I will fight in front of Paris, I will fight in Paris, I will fight behind Paris'' we get the impression that the French high command was determined to make a determined fight for her capital. How realistic was this stand? In the war of 1870-1871 the Germans had great difficulties with the extensive Parisian fortifications. I can only imagine that they must have been improved afterwards. Or am I wrong and were they slowly stripped of their guns as happened in Verdun or in disrepair due to the offensive nature of plan XVII?

Did the Germans have a plan on how to deal with this? Were they again planning on slugging it out in a long siege? This doesn't seem in line with the Schlieffen plan which called for a quick defeat of France in order to deal with the Russian empire.