How did Dutch in southern Africa change into a new language while American English and British English are completely mutually intelligible? What differences in English and Dutch colonialism or the different environments maybe caused this?

Recently attended a graduate conference and sat in on a panel about the role and use of narrative in historical writing.

During the panel various authors were referenced (Mention of Stephen E. Ambrose was met with laughter). Many of the names rattled off I did not recognize and thought it would be useful to know the notable ones in the interest of learning from their style.

Who should be read? Who should be avoided?

In an elective monarchy like the HRE, how was one dynasty able to hold on to the title generation after generation?

Reposting this question because it received no answers (and a fair amount of upvotes) a couple nights ago! Hopefully a quiet Sunday afternoon will prove to find some answer or further reading.

This question has been aching at me this week. Last year I read A History of East Asia: From the Origins of Civilization to the Twenty-First Century by Charles Holcombe. In his introductory chapter he cites Sasha Issenberg's The Sushi Economy to say that sushi was was first a street snack sold from street vendors in 19th c. "Edo-era Tokyo". However, my Japanese language professor said it dated back 800 years or so. In any case I went to my uni's library to go through Issenberg's book and couldn't find what Holcombe was citing, despite the page number being given and the only other relevant books at my university are in Japanese. So, this leads me back to my title.

Thanks in advance!

Pretty sure I was looking in the wrong place in Sushi Economy's introduction, because other reviews note Holcombe's point, but still didn't see citations for that in his intro notes IIRC.

According to Wikipedia he was General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union but Krushchev was just premier IIRC

I suppose it is the French plan which forced France to go into the Defensive. Also that their plan relied upon armies not willing to discuss strategy with the French untill they got invaded.

I imagine that, for prehistoric women, pregnancy was something that sort of 'just happened' once they reached a certain age, due to the mysterious nature of the universe. Since most accounts of life in these times describe women as not really being able to excercise any sort of sexual freedom re: their partners or the frequency of intercourse, it seems like it might not have been obvious what the biological cause of pregnancy was.

i am doing a study for my final year, and this seems to be the best place to ask this, so if anyone can help me, thanks!

It seems that, as a rule, the Turks were relatively relaxed about religion and didn't really persecute people based off of their religion like many other states did at the time. At least, it worked that way in the Balkans, but I can't find anything about the capital itself. And if the Ottomans didn't clear them out, how did it end up majority Muslim anyway?

I know it seperated east and West Berlin, but why?

I know this is a very subjective question, so maybe we can use Stalin as a reference. Would Lenin have been as bad as Stalin? Was Lenin as opportunistic as Stalin? Would Lenin have purged as many people? Could the USSR have survived if Lenin theoretically controlled it for the entire 20th century?

I'm reading a book on the Soviet Union, and it seems like Lenin wasn't that bad. The NEP allowed markets in farms and small businesses, and he advocated total free press (but was blocked by other members of the government). So what y'all think?

I've been spending my free time lately watch Ken Burns docs on Netflix. I'm now watching "The War" (for at least the 6th time), an I'm curious if there is a similar documentary about the war in the eastern front. Preferably in English, or at least English subtitles.

So basically a three or more army free for all? How did this change the tactics involved?