It's something that's often on T.V and in movies but has anyone ever done it? If so, did they still get in trouble for escaping?

I was watching a documentary about the eastern front during World War II and it mentioned that General Zhukov was put in charge of the Soviet army after he crushed the Soviet defense while in command of the invading German army in a "war game". I generally understand them to be some sort of military maneuver to simulate a battle but don't know any more details. Are they in the field with tons of actual soldiers with no weapons or shooting blanks, or played out like a board game?

I imagine today there are all sorts of computer simulations that are used, but I am more curious about older style simulations. Anyone here able to shed some light on the history of "war games"? Doesn't have to be WW2, curious about them in general.

PS I do NOT mean things like Axis & Allies or Call of Duty, I am referring to the military protocols/activities that are used for serious preparation for war.

Thanks

In the majority of academic work the word history/historic/historian etc. is preceded by the word 'an' rather than 'a' despite the absence of a vowel sound at the beginning of the words. This bothers me as in all other cases it would be 'a' as opposed to 'an', but its almost universal usage prompts me to use 'an' when writing academically. Is there a correct usage?

Hello, I know this may be a fairly large question, but I am curious. Was it because of economic reasons, political/domestic reasons, foreign policy reasons? Did Reagan's policies actually work? Thanks.

I WOULD APPRECIATE FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE REASONS FOR IMMIGRATION OF GERMANS IN ARGENTINA ROUND 1870

I'm writing a paper on Sino-Soviet Relations and I would like some secondary source recommendations. I'm fine right now on primary sources, I've already licked soviethistory.org clean and I'm still trudging through the vast amount of primary sources in the Wilson Center Archive. So, right now I'm looking for some articles or maybe a book or two on the subject.

(I do have access to my university's library and database, I could search for this myself, I just wanted some recommendations first.)

Sorry if this is a relatively ignorant question with an obvious answer, but I'm attempting to find some more in depth answers here.

Time period 600 C.E. - 1200 C.E. Western Europe: Spain, Italy, France, Holy Roman Empire, British isles.

To what extent did the Bolsheviks deviate from their original policies towards establishing a socialist state. How far was this justifiable by the civil war?

My father in law and I were having a friendly debate on holiday about the importance of US intervention in Europe. He suggested that it wasn't all that crucial in defeating the Nazis, who were being beaten back by the Soviets regardless.

How important was the US intervention and what might Europe have looked like without it?

This may be a dumb question but I was curious. Did someone invent the lawn mower before anyone else even thought about cutting the grass?

Also, this may have already been asked before. If it has, please let me know or put the link in the comments.

I'm writing a research paper about the societal factors that contributed to Einstein/Szilard letter to FDR + how the letter influenced the development of the Manhattan project and WWII.

I've found a ton of sources already. Most of them, however, refer to the implications of the manhattan project and not so much the factors that contributed to Einstein/Szilard letter or the factors that contributed to FDR's approval of the Manhattan project.

I was also looking or a source that discussed why the Manhattan project was necessary for the US to experience in the 1940's.

If anyone has any sources AND/OR can help me acquire information it would be greatly appreciated!

(one more thing: I still need to word a thesis based on the information I can acquire, if anyone has any idea, please post?)

Thanks so much!

Been watching Keith E. Wrightson's lectures on Early Modern England, and it seems to me that the English were constantly mindful of protecting and enforcing their perceived rights and liberties. I also thought that I detected a fixation on conspiracies, specifically the specter of "popery". My question is, are these perceptions correct? Furthermore, how might we account for such notions and if so, were they a unique characteristic of English society or were such notions commonly held throughout Europe?

I'm watching national treasure and curious.