The following is a quote from Sebastian Haffner's Preußen ohne Legende, translated by me. I found it a very interesting analysis, but I'm curious what the historians here think of its validity.

In its birth and its rise to greatness, Prussia is most definitely a child of the European era between the Peace of Westphalia and the French Revolution. In no other age could a state like Prussia have come up in the world like it did. This era could be called the age of puberty of European power politics, a time of wild impulses and daring antics. During this time, the balance of power in Europe changed more kaleidoscopically than ever before or since.

Before (also for a century and a half, and strangely similar to the present situation*) there had been only two real powers in Europe, in whose endless conflict – open or dormant – all others had to find their place: Habsburg and Bourbon. Afterwards, from the end of the Napoleonic crisis to the First World War, Europe lived in a stable, carefully balanced five-power system. But between 1648 and 1789, things in Europe went like in a gambling hall. For 140 years, the continent looked like a stock exchange of power, where prices constantly rose and fell.

* The book came out in 1979; 'the present situation' refers to the Cold War between the US and the USSR.

Invulnerable superheroes like Superman, Thor, Colossus, and many others all seem to just throw punches, and never any other type, even when something like Ju-jitsu or even greco-roman wrestling would make logical sense for someone who's job is to fight other invulnerable people.

Is there a reason they are written this way? I know comics really started getting popular around WW2, so you wouldn't expect to see many "exotic" (for American audiences at the time) martial arts, but what about modern day?

I don't know if this is officially accepted, but I've been noticing more and more. In TV shows, people no longer say "Good job man, you did well." It's always "Did good." I also never hear people say "Did well" these days.

It annoys me because they have very different meanings. If you did well that means you performed at a higher level. If you did 'good' it means you saved a babies life or stopped a crime. Superman does good, people do well.

If not the Russians, then is there any other historical evidence of this being done?

As I learn more about different languages it becomes clear how much power there is in simply not having the words to express dissent.

Sect might be the wrong word. But I mean the term for what Calvinism and Lutheranism are. And is Calvinism still around?

Edit: Think, obviously.

Also, how did the debate shape American institutions?

I've done a few Google searches but never quite found anything on this.

Now, I'm probably completely incorrect in this regard, but my impression of African colonisation was that a nation basically drew up lines in the sand, and said, "anybody within these lines belongs to us". Now, I'm not entirely sure what came next, but to me it'd seem as if those nations were conquerors, and nearly entirely there to exploit the wealth within those lines drawn in teh sand.

In India, it's a sort of similar case. A trading company expands to acquire riches of a huge magnitude. They basically exploit you for every bit of wealth, and then some.

So here you are, all these natives under your control, who view you as conquerors. Why would any of them fight for you? Was it the quality of life being higher as a soldier than in their tribes, was it some kind of loyalty for these people who care for little more than wealth, or is it something else?

Have I just got the whole idea wrong, and that colonisation wasn't that bad of a thing, and that being ruled by a colonial nation was no different to being ruled by a neighbouring native tribe, who had a similar culture to their own? I apologise for my lack of historical knowledge in this regard.

In general, I realize that New York had a large Italian population (though I'm not so sure if that was the case during WWII) and that the West Coast had a larger Asian population than most places.

That being said, was there ever a public view of German and Italian-Americans facing as much racial discrimination as the Japanese did? I'm not talking about the internment camps, as I am aware of the sad nature of those camps, but rather I am more interested in what the average American during WWII thought of American Italians and Germans during WWII

Thanks in advance everyone

Even after attempted assassination weren't parties still being thrown in the White House wherr the public could join. Like Jackson's inauguration?

Any civilization, even in Mesopotamia.

Hello,

Ex-Muslim here, and whenever i start a conversation with a Muslim about how wrong is it to marry a 9 y/o i hear the now-familiar argument about how it was okay in his time, my response is usually that Muhammad is supposed to be good and that doesn't change anything.. BUT i am becoming curious.. as far as i know it was okay for young males to marry young females, but i have no idea if it was okay for a 40 y/o to marry a 9 y/o in that time.

Thanks.

Please help me identify this book that I have come across. It is very old, and looks like it's maybe in Latin? Anyone know what type of literature it is?