Wording of question is bad after reading but you guys get the point.

I always get surprised by the size of Russia. How has it managed to stay so big and since when has it been this big?

Given that it operated for roughly 200 years I would assume that the Dutch trading post in Nagasaki was a profitable venture. Was this the case, and if so just how profitable was it? From what I recall in a lecture, they averaged only one ship arriving every year, though that could be incorrect.

I need to write a 5-7 page paper about any topic relating to WWI. It can be about the war itself (battles, weapons, military tactics, etc.) or about the effects (*affects?) of the war (economy, politics, society, etc.). The topic needs have enough sustenance to fill 5-7 pages. I don't know much about the Great War, so I would like some suggestions of potential strong topics for a research paper. Thank you!

From what I understand, human evolution involved the emergence of many species that at times co-existed, before most eventually becoming extinct until we are left with just us. I know it is believed that early humans interacted with neanderthals in possible violent conflicts and displacement, but what about other species? Were there any significant conflicts, or co-operative efforts between the different early species of humans? Or did they for the most part just leave each other alone?

As we've discussed in past threads, one of Japan's motivations for the Pearl Harbor attack was to keep the Americans out of they way while they acquired control of the oil resources to their south.

By three an half years later, they didn't even have enough fuel to buy the Yamoto a round-trip ticket.

Why was this?

Was there less than enough oil in Borneo?

Was there a blockade?

Lack of transport? Lack of refinery technicians? Sabotage?

I tried looking up wartime production figures but I couldn't find them broken down by origin.

I'm trying to find some accurate numbers, but all I've managed to find so far was a debate between Robert Conquest (who I think is a Stalinist, but I may need some confirmation on that), and Steve Wheatcroft.

Can someone link me to some more accurate numbers, preferably including the number of people accused of sabotage, counter-revolutionary activity etc?

So I've been researching the American army in World War II. I have a few questions about specific units:

6th Army group/12th Army group: What happened to the 1st-5th or 7th-11th Army groups? Why choose such random numbers?

Why is there no 20th Infantry Division?

Thanks for any help!

Any legal historians familiar with this early freedom civil suit, whom may be able point me in the direction of the primary sources / court records where the case is often summarized from? Thanks much!

I realize that Charlemagne was a pretty brutal guy at times, but then there is Olaf II of Norway. Given his contribution to the church and the number of converts he produced, he seems like a shoe in for the medieval church.

Just as the title says

Basically, in my mind, the way that history seems to have made it's way into the books, not much of the early stuff is all that reliable. Even if we could translate it perfectly (which we can't in most cases) the simple fact that the people from those times believed in radical fantasies cannot be ignored. They made up stuff to explain phenomenons and even some stuff that they did know perfectly well about, but it just probably felt better a certain way on paper. Just like if you were to recall an 'epic moment' in your lifetime, you're likely to touch the facts... I mean, we look at religions alone, people argue that Jesus must have certainly existed, because of his documentation. Although there are very good criticisms. (I will not get into these, I don't feel like arguing over this anymore). Anyhow, if you're going to make a basis of something happening or existing, and saying that somehow maybe there was a small grain of truth in it, then why not Thor? Maybe there was a Viking with a hammer who smacked down some people during a thunderstorm, who knows? Why not start pulling all these ridiculous things out of our asses? Seriously, history has a few easy to pick out events, natural disasters (we can prove these happened with science), wars (there are usually many accounts, and sometimes even remains)?

So why do we lend any credit to ancient mythology? I really do want to know why any historian would try to prove something on a basis of 'half-truths' when there is no good way to prove it definitely (with science).

Often I find historians are on a quest to 'prove' something they think happened, isn't this against the core concept of trying to find out the actual truth?

From what I understand, WWI came about as a result of a series of alliances all of which built up into one giant powerkeg that could go off at the smallest conflict - putting it simply.

But what were the war goals of the Central Powers during the war? What did Germany hope to achieve once they'd defeated France? What did Austria-Hungary want from Serbia? Why were the Ottomans(Not to mention Bulgaria and Greece) involved in this crap at all!?

Similarly for the Triple Entente and their allies, what did they all seek to gain from fighting and winning a war? We saw the products of Allied victory with Versailles, but were the Treaty articles their initial wargoals? Did they initially want more? Did they settle?

That is, what is the earliest known written document that protests an ongoing war for moral, ethical, etc. reasons? I know of Dulce Et Decorum Est which may be the most famous early antiwar piece, but surely there must be older ones than that.