I've been intrigued ever since I heard somebody talk about the book Human Smoke which largely views the entering of America into World War 2 as a capitalist, imperialist manipulation. However, it seems to have gotten largely negative reviews from historians. But how much of what is talked about in it true? Were there certain pressures which weren't "let's help our allies and stop this brutality"?

'De Witt' brothers had called the United Provinces (the Netherlands), without a so called Stadtholder, a 'True Freedom' because now the people/citizens of the Republic alone could rule the country. This happened during 1650-1672. But the prince of Orange, William III, later king of England, lived during that period in the United Provinces. But how much influence did this man had in the Netherlands? He is family of the famous William of Orange and many people during that time saw him as legitimate leader/stadtholder. Did he had any influence behind the scenes before he was made stadtholder after 1672, or was he repelled from any influence as much as possible? And how was his influence after 1688, when he, after the Glorious Revolution, was made King of England?

Thank you all in advance!

Hello! I'd really like to know what were Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev's actual nationalities, are they russian or ukrainian? I only know that Khrushchev is born in the Kursk region near Ukraine and that Brezhnev's parents are from the same region, but Leonid himself is born in Ukraine. Thanks a lot in advance!

The question is deliberately open-ended (and oversimplified for brevity).

I'd appreciate responses on anything from debt incurred by the French Kingdom in the conduct of the war to public resentment about taking up the cause to ideological influence of the republicans across the ocean. Really, whatever you think is relevant.

My knowledge of the Black Panthers is really limited, but it seems that it was an organization that focused its activities almost exclusively in the urban areas of the East and West Coast, particularly Oakland and New York City (and to some extent the Midwest). I'm reading through Bryan Borrough's new book, Days of Rage, and he does mention that the NYC chapter of the Black Panthers did move for a time to Tennesse and then Florida, but these were temporary safe-havens after gaining attention from police in New York. So, why would the Black Panthers not have a major presence in the American South, where racism seems to have been much more ingrained in society and politics (not to discount the racism prevalent in the North)?

When I think of the idea that "then this country adopted this diplomacy" or "then Monroe created this doctrine", I wonder how solid they are in creation. I'm approaching this from the way people approach the World War: at the time, people surely didn't know it was a World War, so they probably called it something else until historians classified it as such.

So, are things like Gunboat Diplomacy and Big Stick Diplomacy vague in creation and later solidified by historians or are they created with an outlined format?

I.e, a cadre of high-ranking professional soldiers responsible for directing military policy and administration for the Empire as a whole?

To elaborate: if we're narrowing down a time period, how about Augustus to the 3rd century crisis?

Who would go to them to to offer terms or treaties? Would they usually go with a show of force like the backing of a Legion or a smaller diplomatic group? Would this always be under the direct authority of the Senate or Emperor, or would a local governor or military general be able to authorise such action? I would be interested in examples.

This question has nothing to do with the recent outcry against the flag as an apparent symbol of racism.

What I want to know is how it came to be that a symbol of a treasonous state was able to be so brazenly flown, without the victor in that war taking offense?

Why didn't the US just make Japan a territory like Puerto Rico and Germany become absorbed by the surrounding European nations?

I'm reading a book about 1848 but it doesn't really show the difference.

On the one hand under his reign Rome was considered to be having a 'golden age', with the Aeneid, marble buildings, temples, statues, long-lasting peace, prosperity, etc. On the other hand he turned Rome into a monarchy and set the way for Caligula, Nero and others. I'm wondering what the sort of consensus is among historians about how Augustus' actions impacted Rome and whether in the longer term Rome was better or worse off for it.

It's been my understanding that-- while Rosa Parks was an activist for the NAACP and the Civil Rights movement had decided not to make Claudette Colvin or Mary Louise Smith the face of their cause-- Parks had no intention of becoming the face of the civil rights movement by refusing to move to the back of the bus. Especially when you learn about Colvin and Smith, it's easy to see how Parks' case was used strategically, but I'm having a hard time believing that it was truly a set up.

been listening to a podcast of Guizot's history of france (from early 1800s) and he's gotten to the potentially attempted duel between Francis and Charles V. Guizot frames this failure to fight as a something both sides wanted as they were only keeping up appearances of a dying ideology (something like chivalry). This dying ideology is then exemplified by the Horatii and Curiatii's duel and the "20 English and 20 Britions."

Can someone help me figure out what the latter example is? google has been very unhelpful.

I imagine the trip would last months, What is my best option regarding riding/walking? how much food do i need to bring with me? considering the vast amount of desert i'd be crossing? and most importantly as mentioned in the title; how much would it cost? can i afford it?