Everything I have read so far states that Einstein and another fellow wrote a famous letter to FDR stating that the atom bomb was possible and FDR should form a team to research it. After that however, Einstein seems to fade into the background? Why was he not involved more in the project?

Hey guys, I plan to go university next year and study history. I'm wondering what inspired you guys to study history and what still inspired you today? Also what books would you recommend to broaden my knowledge?

Thanks for your time.

Some years ago, I read a statement that in the 1970s or 1980s, the Soviet Politburo realized that internal economic figures were totally unusable, so they used only CIA economic estimates in their planning.

It was some source that appeared at the time to be at least plausible, but I don't know now what the source was. For all I know, it could have been anything from Time magazine to a Viktor Suvorov book. My searches were fruitless, but perhaps my Googlefu is weak. Also, it feels to me rather like an urban legend:

• it reinforces listeners' beliefs (anti-Soviet ones, in this case)
• it provides deep / secret knowledge
• how would anyone know?

Did anyone recall hearing or reading of such a notion? Is there any evidence pertaining to it?

Are there any documents, or evidence which support the claims?

Seems that people have been living there continuously for quite some time... How was the language lost? I guess this might also apply to other written languages, too, but it was the Rosetta Stone/philae obelisk/comet lander that made me wonder.

I found out about this from a Robert Caro excerpt and from Politifact. I'm just curious why he did this since based on what I heard he was always supportive of minorities and their rights.

Why is the history of the RAF split into these distinct three generations, why aren't they considered one continuous movement?

I'm watching Django, and it seemed like that was the first time he'd ever had a beer. Is this probably the truth?

And, as a secondary question, what was their diet like, generally?

I remember once hearing that at some point(s) in history (I believe it was medieval Europe) "Absolute theft" was punished more severely, or at least considered less honorable, than banditry. Absolute theft would be what we think of as a non-violent and stealthy theft (Larceny or Burglary), whereas banditry would be armed robbery.

I heard that banditry would be considered more sympathetic to most, and seen as a the last resort of a desperate, but mostly honorable man, while thievery by stealth or deceit would be universally reviled.

Is this true? I've searched for resources on "absolute theft", but was unable to find anything containing that phrase. I have heard some things about the romanticization of highwaymen such as Dick Turpin, and how they may have been seen as different from common criminals. One theory I heard was that a highwayman would likely need to own and know how to ride a horse, which would imply a level of wealth and refinement above a common thief (how many peasants would ever learn to properly ride a horse in their lives?).

So the real questions here: Were popular morals so different from our own that a threat of violence would be considered more acceptable than a non-violent theft? Is the term "Absolute theft" a thing? Were bandits, and highwaymen really considered better than other thieves? Why?

Looking at maps on Wikipedia, the Franks were from the area of the modern Low Countries. And modern Dutch is apparently descended from Old Frankish. So what happened to Frankish identity in those areas?

This isn't, strictly speaking, a question but more a gathering of general knowledge regarding these two periods. I'd like to make a comic, game or whatever taking place in a fusion between these two periods of history. You know, samurai sheriffs, ninjas robbing trains, the whole nine yards. Any knowledge that may prove useful to me?

I'm looking to read some books about Chinese (military, ideally) history. Possibly from anywhere as far back as the Warring States period, into the Three Kingdoms, or up to the Song Dynasty.

Something that isn't dry and it would be cool if there were some that were along the lines of Tom Holland and Anthony Everett that are very readable.

Haven't had much luck in my searches so far and I had no luck looking through the sub's wiki recommendations.

I plan to do a research project with several case studies on guerrilla conflict, and I'm looking for some suggestions for research material. The cases I will pick from are thus:

• France vs FLN

• USSR vs Mujahideen

• US vs Vietcong

• UK vs MLRA (Malaya)

• Portugal vs FRELIMO (Mozambique)

• Portugal vs PAIGC (Guinea-Bissau)

• US vs AQI (Iraq)

I am specifically looking for things that tell me a lot about the insurgent group itself, its strategy and tactics, and its goals. Also, information about the Great Power's strategy and goals would be helpful as well.

Thanks in advance

I know the process of enameling and gilding was not lost when the Febrege work shops closed, but what about details for those special patterns and intricate mechanisms in some of them? In other words, could living craftsmen, given the necessary materials and funds, make jewelry in the style of Fabrege?

I am currently reading the Amulree Report regarding the Domion of Newfoundland in 1933. While reading the report it talks of the Bank of Nova Scotia, which I of course knew of, but it also talks about the Merchants bank of Halifax which became the Royal Bank of Canada. I know that both banks were eventually bought out but how did banks from the smaller city of Halifax become the major banks in Canada instead of ones from the larger centres of Montreal or Toronto?

Or am I just wrong in general and in fact other banks in the larger centres were in fact the main banks?

At school, a teacher mentioned that the "slave trade saved Africa from its own barbarism." This seems ironic considering the slave trade. Is there any truth to her words?

The key NAZI propaganda film was the 1935 masterpiece, titled "Triumph of the Will". But what exactly was "the Will" in that title?

FRIENDLY WARNING:

I am wanting this thread to touch on the issue of the basis of fascism in history. That topic has no consensus among historians, but I would be glad to hear your personal opinions on the matter. I have recently been finding enormously surprising connections between the philosophy of Hegel, and Schopenhauer's writings on freedom, and the idea in "general german culture" of a zeitgeist.

.^(This is a vast oversimplification for the sake of brevity), but German political philosophy apparently was steeped in some sort of idea that individual persons have no free will, but are actors in a larger historical movement, shaped and molded by a collective will.

In addition, this question may exceed history, and might be better asked to philosophers.

Your thoughts...?