We could've had a family row, why a divorce? Keep a American army in the field, make demands on the king, one of those being blanket immunity, etc.

Were our differences so great that we could no longer get along under the same roof?

I've been doing a bit of limited research on the man after watching a BBC documentary on the rulers of Russia, Britain and Germany prior to WWI (Cousins at War: A House Divided). I found out that after his abdication, Wilhelm fled to Netherlands and lived until 1941. Thus, he must have had some opinion on Hitler and his Third Reich, but what was it?

This is something I've always wondered, the English seemed to try to move in and colonize in Ireland, especially north Ireland, but they never tried it with Scotland or Wales.

As a fan of the TV-show and a resident of contemporary "Kattegatt" or what I assume they intend to be somewhere along the Danish/Swedish coast, I was struck by how vastly different the show looks compared to what I imagined this place looked like back in the day. Which is why I have some questions.

Now I do realise that the show is actually shot in northern Ireland and that 99% of the entire thing is pure fiction, but what I wanted to know was what this place of the world, eg Scania and surrounding parts, was actually like in say 850, as compared to the show.

Wasn't there strong central Danish leadership back then? Wouldn't the Danish vikings have answered to someone bigger than a chieftain?

In the show they explain viking raiding with the need to find new land because of the poor quality of the earth in Scandinavia, but to my knowledge Denmark and southern Sweden are actually known for having very high quality soil throughout the entire area. Was this not the case back then?

Are the sizes of the settlements accurate? Would there be no more than 50 or so individuals in a given village/holdfast?

Thanks for any help or information !

Hey all! I've been wondering about this and was wondering if Kennedy was effective in handling the situation and what exactly happened?

History teachers challenge, but could use a little context!

How popular were fascist movements in America from 1930 to 1966? Were there offshoots of fascism in latin america and/or the US? Most of the literature I've read so far that pertains to fascism is about fascism as a means to reject political systems (Robert Paxton) and I was also wondering if fascism could be understood as a rejection of mainstream political ideology as well. Anything to clarify this would be helpful, Thanks!

Just thought about this yesterday and figured I'd ask

I bought a straw fedora the other day and I thought I looked really good but my friend says it was never cool. It got me wondering about the history of the fedora. Help me prove her wrong?

When reaching the eastern shore of presumably Lake Ontario and being faced with this never-ending horizon what was that experience like? Was there a misunderstanding of it being another ocean, or did the native population provide the necessary guidance to navigate the great lakes? Did the native population have the technology to traverse the lakes, or did that come later with the colonials?

This has been a question sitting on the edge of my mind for a while, and I have no idea how to begin searching for an answer.

I understand that this is an unscientific extension of my own thoughts to others, but I feel as though the concept of a "nothing" is something which ought to be innately understand as the difference between something being, and something not. Math seems to be so strongly representative to me that I have difficulty understanding how cultures that utilized math lacked a mathematical representation for 0.

They might have used something else, but I have no idea. Maybe mathematical representations represent things that "are," and the way of representing things that "are not," or nothing, is to just not represent them.

Help.

The spatial metaphor of height seems always to be linked to being better. (Examples: "I'm above that". "You're the tops", "I'm trying to take the high road." Even being "down to earth" is only good because the person doesn't act like they're "above" everybody.) Has this always been the case? Has being "down" ever been good? Any idea of the historical origins of this idea?

Question is just that. I know the Soviet Union under Stalin and later had some anti-Semitic feelings. I also know liberated Red Army prisoners were not treated well at all.

I really enjoy WW2 history, but am unfamiliar with the early events. I've often heard that the British "defeat" was due to a French failure, but after reading some wikipedia it appears that the British army may still have been lacking due to not preparing correctly during the inter-war years.

For measurements of length, speed, energy, weight and a lot of other things we have pretty logical units of measurements. The meter, the gram, watt, etc.

But we didn't change the clock from 24 units/day to something like 10 units/day, or scrap "months" for something easier, a 1/10 of a year (or something like it). Why did this never change?

More interested in the period since the party came to power until the beginning of the war.

I recently came across the pictures and writings of the bonefields in Volgograd / peschanka area from the remains of the soldiers who died there. My immediate though was of the mongol organized massacres at nishapur and merv, the seige of Baghdad and the destruction of shu and chengdu. Has there ever been evidence of the remains from those events?

Just saw PBS' 'Diary of Dr. Livingstone' and it seems crazy that the source hadn't been found.