I know, for example, that the MG42 lives on in today's MG3 that the Bundeswehr uses..but how much other equipment that was used by Germany was still used/produced after the war? Most of the small arms, to my knowledge, weren't "obsolete" in the immediate post-war era, and the semi-auto and automatic rifles that were being used at war's end were ahead of their time. Were these weapons picked up by any other nation or produced again in any capacity?

I'm just wondering if there are any sources that explicitly mention Hitler's opinion of Napoleon and his conquests? They are probably the two greatest Modern European conquerors, and both fell into the same trap (invading Russia). I think it would be interesting to know how Hitler viewed Napoleon as a general and leader.

There's an extensive book list on the sidebar. But it's all print books. Most of them are not available in digital form. I really don't want to collect massive tomes of history books, but I'd like to learn more about history.

Could there be a list of good history books that are available in an ebook format?

To elaborate, when European kingdoms invaded the Levant and sought to capture holy cities and sites, there was a clear religious motive behind it. To Muslim powers defending against them, was there a perception of a broader religious conflict between the two faiths or did they look at the crusades simply as invasions meant to be repelled?

Why is it A, B, C, D, E, etc.? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

This is a question that came up in the worldnews thread about Japanese steel workers. Many people argue that the atomic bombs were a necessary alternative to a homeland invasion to force Japanese surrender. However, I've been doing some preliminary research and it seems that many military strategists such as Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, and Nimitz believed that Japanese surrender was inevitable without military intervention due to the destruction of their air force and navy, leaving no offensive capabilities left. As Nimitz said,

"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Why couldn't the US force Japanese surrender through passive military action, especially considering the Soviet invasion? Was it due to the US wanting to occupy Japan before the Soviet Union in preparation for the Cold War?

People always talk about the web of alliances that helped cause WWI and how many of these treaties were 'secret'. Did world leaders really have no clue that two countries might be allied?

.

I have tried googling, but I cant seem to find the process of how plate armour was created, and I would love to know how they did it in the 15th century.

It seems miraculous to me that a rag tag band of revolutionaries in a defeated occupied country could fight off the strongest nations of the day.

I am reading The Last of the Tin Can Soldiers by James D. Hornfischer and what strikes me as miraculous is that despite constant sorties by American airmen (often while unarmed) they were hit very infrequently. I realize 23 were destroyed, but that is out of 3 taskforces after constant flight through flak. Were the Japanese crews that poorly trained and equipped or were the Americans just that lucky?

Would you be aware that the Vikings were coming every so often? Would you only know if you were in one of the coastal towns that was often raided?

I'm an avid player of a video game in which the player takes a role of a single soldier from the napoleonic wars era. It's a lot of fun, and we have hundreds of players in regiments fighting daily battles using chain of command and different detachments. Because of the morale not being an issue and easy communication the game is far from realistic but there are a lot of tactics that are as useful as they were 200 years ago o the real battlefields. I'm really interested in learning whatever the real officers learned in order to satisfy my curiosity and hopefully make myself a better commander. I'm searching for training materials (books, maybe illustrations) used in that era. If anyone could link me something like that I'd be grateful.

I'm trying to find out about the political side of the United Province of Canada, but am having trouble without access to an academic library.

It's not so much the policies or personalities that I'm interested in, but more the institutions and the mechanics.

What would 'election season' have looked like? Who could vote? Who could stand? Would candidates bother interacting with the disenfranchised? Was there an established newspaper culture? How different were Upper and Lower Canada, or was everything universal after union? It's specifically Upper that I'm wanting to find out about, but would be interested to learn about Lower as well.

Today's historical fiction (Both in cinema and literature) is judged for historical accuracy in so many ways. From chronology to interpretation of events to language and costume. But was this always the case? Specifically regarding Shakespeare's histories.

Did he value historical accuracy in his writing? And how important was this to his audience? Both upper and lower classes.

A few more related questions...

What type of research would Shakespeare, or other playwrights of that era, have done?

Did his plays influence public perception of historical events or personalities?