By "cold war", I'm referring to policies carried out by the US and her allies and USSR/Russia.

I can't help feel that a lot of the charges that led to her execution were trumped up, so what actual evidence is there? Particularly on the charge of incest?

I know the English had some carriers in the area. I don't know what campaigns they were involved in or if the English had ground troops or land aircraft in the theater.

Yes, this question is oddly specific.

A few weeks ago, my fiancée and I were checking out some of the local history places around Austin, TX. Many of them deal with the wave of German immigration into the area around 1830s-1850s-ish, especially in some of the outlying towns like Fredericksburg which were majority-German-speaking for many years afterwards. After seeing several different preserved or replica homesteads from that era, one thing that stood out to us was the repeated presence of waffle irons in the kitchens.

This item surprised us. Quite a bit of the historical narrative dealt with how these immigrants had a difficult and labor-intensive life, due to poor growing climates (and in the case of Fredericksburg, sources of funding falling through). They were very no-frills by modern standards, with a small stove and not much equipment.

A waffle iron seems... like an inefficient investment. It's not mechanically complicated, but it has a complicated shape and it's solid so it takes a decent amount of iron. It's a very specialized piece of equipment, compared to other large metal implements in the home (like pans). And if you can make waffles, you could make pancakes with basically the same recipe and no specialized equipment.

So I don't get why they all went to the effort and expense of making/acquiring a waffle iron. Where they not as difficult to make as I'm assuming? Am I missing something in the comparison of waffles to pancakes? Was this one of the few luxury items that the Germans embraced? Was it a Continental tradition that they refused to give up?

The U.S. took half of Mexico's territory why didn't they try and take all of it?

I was taught they're opposites on the left right scale, the other redditor offered some information from Wikipedia that suggested they're both fascism. So dear experts, what does history say?

I am looking for some readings on Prussian stagey during the German wars of Unification. I currently have read:

Barry, Quintin. The Franco-Prussian War 1870-71. Volume 1, West Midlands, England: Helion & Co., Ltd, 2009.

Bradford, Earnst. “Prussian Railway Administration.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 29:3 (1907): 66-78.

Col. Davis, R.R (British Army). “Helmuth von Moltke and the Prussian-German Development of a Decentralized Style of Command: Metz and Sedan 1870.” Defence Studies, 5:1 (2005): 83-95.

Col. Lorimer, John G. (British Army). “Why Would Modern Military Commanders Study the Franco- Prussian War.” Defence Studies, 5:1 (2005): 108-123.

Ford, Guy. “Boyen's Military Law.” The American Historical Review, 20:3 (1915): 528-538.

Hecker, Ewald. “The Compulsory System in the German Empire.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, 6:4 (1916): 213-220.

Holborn, Hajo. “The Prusso-German School: Moltke and the Rise of the General Staff.” In Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, eds. Peter Parent, Gordon Alexander, and Felix Gilbert, 281-295. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Rothenberg, Gunther E. “Moltke, Schlieffen, and the Doctrine of Strtegic Envelopment.” in Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, eds. Peter Parent, Gordon Alexander, and Felix GilbertI, 295-325. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Wawro, Geoffrey. The Franco-Prussian: War The German Conquest of France in 1870-1871. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

I am doing research for a paper on this subject. I have written on this subject before but am looking for any additional readings that would further my understanding of it. Additionally, I am open to any recommendations as to what I should focus in my paper on (this will be a 20 page paper). By no means am I trying to get you guys to do my homework for me and I hope this is not against the subreddit rules on that matter. I am simply trying to get suggestions and recommendations from as many people as possible to ensure there is not something I have overlooked. Thank you again in advance

Cheers

Hello all. We know that Sweden and Denmark have fought multiple times, so can anyone tell me which one has won more of the wars fought between the two? Thanks in advance!

Basically I've seen footage in the documentary ''The world at war'' where the following happens:

An airplane lands on an aircraft carrier ship, is held by a rope/spring type of thing and then almost makes a front flip and hits the deck very hard when landing. By doing so the wings smash against the deck and catch a lot of damage, sometimes even breaking.

There were a lot of different footage where the aircraft caught damage when landing, what's up with that? Did they repair those things right on the deck in a short time or did they have to go back to the US?

A number of old papyri documents seem to reference works that were once popular, but are no longer extant. Does anybody know if anyone in the Classics field has collated a list of all known lost works from that era?

Hey guys,

I'm taking AP US History this year, and we're currently covering the Age of Discovery, and I think my teacher may be a tad confused. He seems like someone who will hear a non-mainstream theory and solicit it as fact, because none of the claims he's made have had any backing in the text.

First, he claims that the Navarrese Basques discovered America over a century before Castile and Aragon did. He claims that they had lots of settlements in Canada for cod fishing, and never told anyone because they didn't want to give up their fishing spot. This seems strange to me, and its not supported by the text. He's just passed it off as text and now most of the class believes it.

The second claim he made is that Cristopher Columbu was not born in Genoa, but in Spain. He says there was a civil war not long before Columbus asked Ferdinand and Isabella for funding, and he was on the opposite side from them. To make sure they werent biased against him, he claimed he was Genoese. This seems strange to me because to my knowledge, the only big Iberian war in Columbus's lifetime was the conquest of Granada, and Columbus certainly wasn't Muslim, was he?

If someone could clear this up, that'd be great, thanks!