I know about the current dispute with Nagorno-Karabakh, but I've read that those 2 culture have at least a century-old beef with eachother.

How come? How did it start?

In honor of D-Day this has always bothered me. Seems rather obvious that as the allied troops are landing that they could use smoke grenades/shells launched from ships to obscure the landings?

It would seem that the U.K. might've been better informed, as the Union and Confederacy both vied for their support in the conflict. But were other nations comparably interested or knowledgeable?

The U.S. was not yet a world power at that point, so might they have just largely ignored it? But if not, how was it represented in the press at the time, or by their historians, politicians, etc.?

Thanks for your consideration!

I know espionage from the Eastern bloc to the West was mainly KGB. For example, the Soviets stole secrets from the U.S. during the space race. Did the Stasi have significant influence in this area as well? Or did the Stasi focus mainly on domestic espionage like surveilling the GDR's people?

How did that become a wish of good luck?

I was reading Richard Miles book Carthage must be destroyed and he mentions Carthage and Athens possibly having an alliance, however I know his book is poorly sourced so I was wondering is there any evidence to suggest this?

My question comes from a story I read where the German Intelligence Service was the only Western intel agency to know Israel planned to attack Egypt to end the war quickly in their favor, in 1967. They were able to report to the Americans, who seemed to think the opposite was going to happen, even knowing the attack time/beginning of the war to the hour.

It seems to me that Japan and Germany have went out of their way to educate their children around the actions of their forefathers in WWII, where Italy seems to have come out of it fairly unscathed in the face of modern popular opinion.

As far as I remember, Mussolini's reasoning was a direct attack on the democracy and freedom of western nations. Is there a reason for that people seem to have forgotten Italy's role in WWII?

If a woman fled an abusive husband and wanted to marry somebody else, without divorcing the first man, would she be easily found out?

Are there known cases of a wife leaving her village and never coming back? Were laws made to prevent this? If a woman set up in another town, how could she support herself?

When were they introduced, and by whom? Did they quickly replace barter and other forms of currency, or was it a more gradual transition? Thanks!

Despite all of the Soviet hardware having designations already, many systems were given different names by NATO. For example, the 9K37 Buk was called the SA-11 "Gadfly".

But not all systems - seemingly AFVs tend to use the native designation even in the West - T55, BMP-2, BTR-60.

Why the parallel system? Why for some things and not others? How were the NATO codenames chosen?

Modern-day homophobia is often associated with religious reasons, but I was under the impression the Soviet Union was officially an atheist state. What was the rationale behind punishing homosexuality? That procreation is good for the economy?

I bet I gotcha with that title didn't I? Well, my question is a bit more complex. I have heard both the claims that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery and more to do about states rights. I have also heard that slavery was the only reason the Civil War was fought (both of these examples are extreme but I used them to illustrate the point of the partisanship of the issue). Over the last generation, the latter opinion has prevailed. My question is this:

How does one reconcile the fact that slavery was a major cause of the Civil War with the fact that many in the North did not care about the slavery issue?

I would also like a description on what there claim is/was based upon

Other Note: i might be exceding the 20 year time limit however im suspecting there are still people who claim it, it wouldnt be fair if we neglect them, and it doesn't fit in /r/SocialScience because this is mostly a historical question.

Hey, i'm not sure this is the right sub for this question and if this not right feel free to delete it and sendnme pver to the correct subreddit.

So, anyways, could it be possible that books can falsify history? Today nobody denies there was a man called Napoleon and we have ton of resources about him. But nobody actually saw the man or was present in that time to witness the changes he made. We luckily have ton of resources about him and nobody can deny there was a man called Napoleon that changed the course of history.

But let's take an old manuscript, which makes a statement about a guy who changed the course of history but nobody can remember him. Why should I, believe that old manuscript who states that guy is a true document from that time, and if the opposite, just some made-up story that we think is real and believe that there actually was this Napoleon-like dude who changed history?

I'm not sure I have the right terminology to ask this question.

My sense is that 19th century European nationalism--sometimes called Romantic nationalism? and usually marked as beginning with the French Revolution?--is considered somehow different in degree or kind from other types of ethic and political organizations in that it is somehow hyper or modern or institutional or violent or exclusive (i.e., by explicitly defining itself in dichotomous terms with an analogy between us/them and good/evil) or something relative to earlier, I don't know, "ur-nationalisms".

My question stems from reading and thinking about Ancient Greece. The Greeks, once organized into city-states, seemed to have had some conception of difference between themselves and others, so that Athens and Sparta seemed to understand themselves differently and, at times, antagonistically.

What makes those Greek city-state differences and antagonisms different from the differences and antagonisms of 19th century Europe? And what--other than the printing press, since Athens and Sparta, to continue my previous example, seemed to have imagined themselves differently prior to the printing press--accounts for the origins of the distinction between Ancient Greek city-state "nationalism" and 19th century European nation-state "nationalism" (other than the difference in scale between city-state and nation-state)?

Or am I just wrong about how people imagined their communities in Ancient Greece?

(Obviously I've read Benedict Anderson, but he was writing in the 1960s and I'm not up to date on more recent scholarship in the field.)

Did they run out of names?

Was the person who named them a Historian?

I just keep spotting those Ancient names coming up in U.S cities and I'd like to know some more about their origin.

I can't remember for the life of me where I heard this but it was attributed to George Washington and I have never been able to find it sourced. Hoping someone with more insight can fill me in, thanks!

I'm looking for information (ideally primary sources, but also books, good encyclopedia articles, and documentaries) on the British in India circa 1750 through 1800. Specifically, I'm trying to get a handle on the economics of the East India Company, how they made money, and how individuals who went to India got rich.

I've already done the cursory Google/Wikipedia searches, but it's a broad topic, and I'd love specific recommendations to help narrow down my reading.