Given the number of planes flying overhead to bomb germany at night and during the day I was wondering if the German/French people on the ground saw it as something "normal" and didnt really pay attention to if they werent near any potential targets.

Also after the paratroopers started to drop wgat was the initial reaction by the soldiers and civilians? The only time something like this would of been seen was pre-WW2 with the joint German/Russian paratrooper initiative and the invasion of crete.

Prior to the American Civil War, the Democratic party was heavier in the South, where they clung to slavery, while the Republican party was stronger in the North and was more into Civil liberties. Now the Democrats are stronger in the North and the Republicans in the South and the Democrats are the ones for civil rights. At what did this switch take place?

I want to learn some more on the military giant but I am not sure what books are best from some history amateur! Thanks if you respond!

Specifically on the war in general or the Cuban campaign.

So, I was reading through blitzkrieg discussions here in askhistorians, and it seems that 1: breakthrough and encirclement and 2: deep penetration are both mentioned, but never together in the same answer. I can think of examples for both (1: the early breakthroughs in the Eastern front and 2: Kursk, for example), but here are the points that made me wonder.

First, breakthrough with heavy units is nothing new, as old as warfare itself, the same is true for encirclement. This isn´t anything revolutionary.

Second, someone mentioned in an answer something along the lines, that Guderian was the first truly clausewitzian general and he fought on several occasion with his superiors to be allowed to deeper penetrate into enemy territory.

As far as I remember (it was long long years ago the last time I read his book) Clausewitz wrote about the idea that making an enemy unable to fight can win battles, not just destroying them. Which applied to armored warfare would mean, that penetrating deep into enemy territory, disrupting supplies, command lines and reorganization renders the enemy unable to fight. This would tip the balance toward deep penetration focus.

All in all: the breakthrough and encirclement view of the blitzkrieg is an oversimplification, and the real revolutionary idea was deep penetration (leaving encirclement to non motorized infantry) or the two are perfectly compatible and the situation dictates always which should be used?

Extra question: Can we really view Guderian as the first truly clausewitzian military leader?

Edit: I´m aware of the importance of Auftragstaktik and land-air coordination, what I am really interested in is the application of armored divisions.

I have to confess that the question about D-Pads on gaming controllers the other day got me thinking about questions that could be asked about other relatively recent technological matters, and it occurred to me that there will someday probably be an official discipline for "Internet History" or something like that. The World Wide Web, at least, has some four years of existence that currently fall outside /r/AskHistorians' date cut-off - but what was going on during that time that might be worth talking about?

This is a really sadly open-ended question, and I know those are discouraged here, but I need to find out more information about this before I can even figure out more precise questions to ask.

What was the purpose of breaking into Watergate? What was Nixon trying to accomplish?

Who was there, what were their intentions, and is this the origin of the first organized catholic, or universal, church?

We've all heard of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc. because their fame has lasted through the centuries. More modern composers like Mahler and Stravinsky were recorded and became famous while they were alive because it was fairly easy to be able to listen to them. My question is how come composers like Mozart were such superstars during their times without any ways of hearing them other than in live performances? Surely there couldn't be that many people who could listen to their work live.

Edit: I left out a word.

I've been playing too much Rome II lately and have been wondering about the Carthaginian's use of War elephants in their army. I know that the Carthaginian's did in fact use war elephants (I used to have a book on spies that described Hannibal Barca as a great spymaster and there was a painting of him riding on an elephant). I was wondering how these elephants were effective based on the fact that you could only get so many elephants, and that if you were to say surround an elephant with elite Roman spearman(Triarii) for example, it would severely impede the elephants movement and effectiveness on the battlefield. So my question is, were the elephants used more for their demoralizing effect than the damage they caused to troops on the battlefield, and were these elephants cost effective to the war effort?

At the time Japan had lost nearly all of the land gained during their conquest, and the U.S. clearly had the upper hand. So my question is, would a blockade of Japan have been feasible?

I'm just curious. I go to a fairly conservative private school so teachers make anti-Democrat comments all the time. Beyond the tax thing though, did Kennedy's views and policies align more with the philosophies of the current Republican or Democratic Parties? Or was it a mix of both?

In the great past, I understand that it was customary for leaders to lead the front lines into battle and fight alongside their men. I have been told this inspired the men to stand by their king and fight for their kingdom. If this is correct, when did this practice fall out of custom and why?

For instance, could commoners of Florance attend mass at the Florentine Cathedral?