Was their opposition ideological? Were they mercenaries? What were their demographics? Were they Arabs or Berbers? Urban or Rural?

There were plenty of wars before, but none of them was a world war. Was it made possible primarily by advances in communication, transportation, or something else?

The main answer for this is that " the attack ran out of momentum". Maybe I have a fundamental misunderstanding of how trench warfare worked, but I assume that once the enemy's trenches were broken through, it would be much easier from that point onward to gain ground.

Aside from trivia such as the "two guns from a man" and common old-Soviet jokes about allocated goods such as cars not being received until 5 years after they were requested. What are the reasons that the USSR were never able to meet demands for goods/services during its history?

In a socialist/communist state, shouldn't one expect a reasonable supply of consumer goods if wealth was not funneled to the oligarchy (of course I understand that the reality may not be the case)?

I also understand that the USSR produced some of the greatest quantity of war materiels in history (e.g. most T-55 model tanks, most firearms of specific types such as the SKS, AK-47), did the USSR just convert their factories to producing newer war materiels than to convert them to producing consumer items in peacetime? I notice that a lot of the former-Soviet states still use a lot of Soviet-era infrastructure/cars.

How long would it take for someone to travel by boat from London, England to Bombay, India in the 17th century? How many miles would that journey be?

"Book" in this case being a bound collection of pages made from paper/papyrus/vellum/other materials.

Americans originally had a British dialect when they settled in the new world, I'm wondering when and possibly why their dialect changed.

In the book Don Quixote, a Spanish slave who recently escaped from Algiers says that in addition to Arabic, the Moorish people speak a language that is a blend of Castilian, Arabic, Berber, and I believe also French. The slave then goes on to say that Europeans, Turks and Moors who trade in the area use that hybrid language to communicate with each other.

Indus river valley. Tigris and Euphrates. Nile river. Yellow river.

They all were the cornerstones of great civilizations right? Unless I'm mistaken, they fueled the food source, the food source fueled giant populations, and giant populations fueled empires. So why did the two major new world civilizations thrive in mountains (Andes) and jungles (Central America). Those seem like the absolute worst places to maintain a consistent food supply. Why didn't the large civilizations of America form around the Mississippi or Parana rivers. Yes I know there were the Mississippian cultures, but mounds of earth don't really compare with vast empires and huge stone structures. So is it coincidence the new world civilizations developed where they did? Or is there a good reason?

Thank you in advance for any responses. I'm really curious about this one.

Edit: Capitilazation and clarity

Were they aware of the scale and the nature of the events around them?

Secondly, how differently did the Japanese and the Allies treat them?

I would assume that having so much information available would be an incredibly overpowering advantage and would lead to an Allied victory much sooner.

For example, are there any ancient Korean manuscripts that only lie in some library in Pyongyang (and they dont feel like sharing)? Or are there very important archeological sites? Or does South-Korea pretty much own all the interesting stuff?

Some characteristics of the Western identity is as follows:

• The founders of western civilization were the Greeks and Romans.

• Much of modern western thought was developed in the Enlightenment, which values rationalism, free speech, republicanism, etc.

• Christianity is a major, if not, the most integral piece of western identity, but its limited to Catholicism and Protestantism.

• To be Western is to be white? USA, Canada, Australia, etc. are considered to be part of the Western world yet much of Latin America, although countries created by European colonization with European immigrants and Christian culture/religion, it isn't considered Western. Also, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, are not considered western, even though they do contain large swaths of European. This part of Western identity is the part I find most problematic.

• I feel that there seems to be a "new" western identity. The "old" western identity was centric on Europe and rationalistic thought, while the "new" western identity is entirely dependent on how good of an ally you are to America. America in the new identity is considered to be the quintessential western country, while the old identity it was France. Could this transition from old to new be where Latin America was left out of the Western civilization?

How accurate is this description of the West?

I know that we can think of situations where at the transaction level bartering could happen but was there ever a society that was based on bartering where there was no form of currency at all?