/r/badeconomics has a thread right now contending that this is basically a myth. Some of the claims made there make sense, but others aren't as convincing. And users seem to be generally relying on wikipedia & The Economist, which are fine but not the greatest sources. Now I know Simon Schama has written in defense of the notion & one of the original popular histories of the Great Famine (The Great Hunger) did as well. Charles Kindleberger, afaik one of the best-known economic historians of the 20th-century, was supporting this idea as late as the 1980s. So, what's the historical consensus on this? Is there something more definitive today that I could read on this maybe from an actual economic historian or cliometrician?

I know it sounds weird, but one of my friend's mom (we're Iranian) mentioned it and I've never heard such a thing and was curious if this was true.

I know this is a pretty specific question, but I'm getting desperate. I've looked in Richard Hobbs' book The Carcano, and I've looked online to no end. Does anyone know, or know where I can look for, information about the issuing of rifles? I'm trying to find out what would have been most common for a division fighting in Sicily in 1943. I know the full length 1891 was most common all around with the 38/91 behind it, but by 43 would 38/91s still have been common? Would the 41/91 be replacing it? I know this is the most minute of the minutia, and I apologize.

From what I've learnt, Britain's GDP almost collapsed because of the bubble that was created, and I guess it could basically be described as a massive Ponzi scheme. Did the British see it coming? How did the South Sea Company even convince such a large number of people to get involved - even the royal family?

I just read somewhere that the Iraq war has cost America $1.7 trillion and counting. What kind of money did WWII cost America? And how does it compare to what we are spending today on the Iraq war?

I'm aware of the 1953 overthrow of PM Mossadegh in Iran, the 1954 overthrow of President Arbenz in Guatemala, and the 1973 coup against President Allende in Chile, but my knowledge ends there. Considering these events were precipitated by election of people whose beliefs ran counter to Western business interests and/or economic beliefs, I'd assume that at least during the Cold War and "fight against communism" there were more nations that also elected those types of people and who were subsequently overthrown.

Cold War, WWII, WWI, post-Cold War, post-9/11. This could be West, East, Third World.

Sorry I didn't perform a useful search.

Said that, sometimes I wonder how much help could have brought a pocket calculator like the Curta on the battlefield during the second world war or even previous conflicts.

Then I realised that I don't really know which methods were employed by artillery units to estimate how to aim the guns, similarly for other type of weapons that cannot be used by mere 'see, aim and fire'. They used precompiled calculations? They adjusted the aim according to the feedback from the observers? Could you explain to me and maybe give some sources?

Many thanks

Some friends and I were discussing World War II and the Nazi regime. We could all agree that the "I was just following orders" defense doesn't fly when you're examine Nazi Officers/higher ranking people. But there were some disagreements over how that worked for the average-Joe soldier/accountant/person enlisted by the Nazi party to work for them/at internment camps.

If a soldier, or anybody who was to be stationed at a concentration camp wanted to refuse could they even do so without fear of having their entire family locked up/killed? How would the "I was just following orders" defense apply to them? Were/should they be absolved of their crimes? Should they still be punished if they wanted to get out but couldn't for the fear mentioned above? Did/do most people expect them to face jail/the consequences rather than do things so immoral?

There of course had to be some that abandoned the regime/military and escaped to a safe country but what about those that were stuck there in the 1940's?

I really don't know this because most sites wont explain it to me. I really appreciate if you Historians can help me out.

I am aware of Roosevelt's "The New Deal" turned USA around abit during the 1930s, and people became more optimistic. But what exactly kept USA from becoming extremist right or left during the 1920s and early 1930s?

It seems like a perfect idea to me. What was the original idea behind its implementation and what made it end?

He's hardly the only critic capitalism has ever had, but he is far and away the most well known (I hadn't heard of Engels even until I got to college). What is it about him or his ideas (or the way that either of those have been branded) that make his name so exclusively synonymous with alternatives to capitalism?

Did they see it as an example of the failings of Catholicism? Were the new Protestants allies against the Catholic church or a threat against the true church? Did they even care about the religious wars of Northern Europe, or were they more concerned with local matters?

I've asked a similar question before but I'd like to know how it affected further operations. I understand it also helped the Dutch in someway through the hongerwinter but am unsure of the specifics. Many thanks.

Both sides claimed victory, but did anyone actually win?

I know there are inaccuracies about his family life in the show, but my question is more about his character. In the show he is depicted as cold, heartless, and socially awkward even. He is also shown to be uncomfortable in battle and doesn't take part in command. Does this have any basis in actual history?