So this is an odd little question I have for you. I have a list of overseas US nuclear weapon deployments during the Cold War, but the names of many of the countries are blacked out. However, they are in a monospaced font and in alphabetical order, so many of them can be puzzled out. The one that has me stymied is this one: it comes between "Canada" and "Cuba" alphabetically, and it has room for no more than 13 characters in the blacked out name. (And it is possible, of course, that it is less than 13 characters.)

Country X received had nuclear bombs deployed from February 1956 through March-May 1956. Which is an impressively small window. Note that I mean literal bombs here, so there must have been some means of using bombers.

Country X also had the Regulus missile deployed from March-May 1956 until October-December 1964. The Regulus was a ship-launched missile with a range of only 1,200 miles or so. It also had the Talos missile deployed from October-December 1964 through December 1965. Talos was a long-range nuclear surface to air missile that was used in naval deployments.

Which suggests that either Country X is a boat (but it would be the only boat on the list) or it is a port of some kind. (Guam and Hawaii both also had Talos and Regulus deployments.) Note that the "name" need not necessarily be a country, per se — non-continental US states (Alaska, Hawaii) are on the lists, as are territories (Puerto Rico), individual islands (Johnston Island), and so on. Note that in the case of Johnston Island, Island has been abbreviated as "Is."

The only thing I came up with that might fit the bill is Christmas Island, but it would have to be abbreviated as "Christmas I."

Any thoughts as to who might fit the bill?

I've often heard it repeated that the the Russian winters of 1812-13 and 1941-42 were unusually cold and harsh. Is this supported by climate records and other evidence?

First of all, I apologize if this is a silly question. I am performing a piece of drama that requires the role of a female doctor in the '40's, and my research doesn't seem to be succeeding. Any answer would be appreciated! Thank you.

I realize that Hitler had already committed suicide and Nazi Germany had already surrendered by this time, but I'm curious what the general population (and any surviving Nazis) though about the bombs? Were they shocked? Relieved that it wasn't them?

How about Churchill and De Gaulle?

In my Intro to Caribbean Studies class my professor talks about how detrimental European colonialism was and how it is comparable to fascism and Hitler. I think that it was a little dramatic of a statement but I wanted to see what you guys thought.

I have heard that for every combatant 2 or 3 people were needed. So for an army of 100,000 soldiers there would be another 200,000 to 300,000 people in support. Is that accurate?

From most of my research, English common law developed out of ancient Germanic tribal law. Why was England the only country that kept this practice? Were there other countries that had this practice, but switched over to civil law? If so, how did they differ from English common law, or were the practices largely the same?

I recall learning in grade school that both the British and American armies would station a line of troops behind the main line, with orders to kill any soldier that turned around and ran during a battle. I was thinking about this last night, and I can't imagine how this would do any real good for an army. I would imagine that this would be disastrous for group morale and trust, to have one portion of the army assigned to kill their own comrades. I can't imagine this being good for any sort of social organization. Moreover, were the armies so poorly trained that soldiers were liable to flee en masse? How did you convince one segment of your army to kill their buddies?

So my question is, if this is true, then how did it really go down in practice? And if it's false, why was I taught it?

I know the people after Europeans arrived consisted of the Lenape, Shawnee, Iroquois and that the people that were hear prior are typically referred to as the Monogahela people.

My understanding is that when settlers arrive these people were gone and no one really knows why, some speculate disease arrived before settlers there or other tribes ran them out or absorbed them.

Does anyone know if we know much else? Being from the area I've had an interest in the people that were there before me, especially since we occasionally find flint not native to the area and in some cases arrow heads and tools.

I have been playing the latest installment of the Dynasty Warriors video game series and was curious about what life might have been like at that time for the people of China.

What was life like for the common folk? And the lords?

Did the lords have a huge advantage over common foot soldiers in battle?

Any idea what the battles were like?

For example, Herman Kahn might not have felt the full force of the development of ICBMs when he was writing in the 60s--I remember him constantly talking about strategic bombers and I sat there scratching my head (surely nuclear powers don't use strategic bombers now).

EDIT: Of course, this is AskHistorians, not AskMilitaryPolicyAdvisors, so maybe a better question could be 'how did thoughts about nuclear war change over the cold war?' Should have thought this one through.

There are 4 essay questions and any information, main points I could discuss, or details would be very helpful.

1. Explain the ways in which the French Revolution embodied the liberal and democratic paradoxes.

2. How and why did England differ from continental Europe from 1815 to 1955?

3. What were the main social, political, and economic consequences of the industrial revolution?

4. Compare and contrast the ideas about the cause and nature of historical change in three of the following authors: Burke, Paine, Mill, and/or Marx.

I am an UK student and part of our A-Level History course is studying Germany between 1871 and 1945. One of our key topics is the above question. I understand it is a controversy and so there is no clear-cut answers however I would like to read some opinions and gain some insight. Thanks

While reading on Dioscorus of Aphrodito, I noticed that while the poet's complete name was “Flavius Dioscorus,” his father was simply called “Aurelius Apollos.” The book I was skimming through remarked that it was due to social promotion, because the name Flavius denoted a higher social rank; and indeed, important people of the Late Roman Empire tended to be called Flavius. Since Diocletian complete nomen was “Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus”, I assume that the transformation of Flavius as a sign of social standing postdates the end of the 3rd century. When did this change happen? Why?

I've encountered this phrase a few times and I am trying to understand it, so I can understand the ensuing attempts and resistance to reforming the Franciscan order. I am fascinated by the spontaneous delight the Franciscans seemed to take in the particulars of God's Creation, but it is intriguing that this order that was so dedicated to radical poverty was also resistant to attempts at making it more austere/strict (a la Matthew of Narni and Gregory of Naples).

I can get my hands on Bonaventure's works, but I am trying to understand the ethos of the Franciscans.

Jesus Fucking Christ, let me first apologize for the mentally challenged shit I’m about throw down.

Why are the stories of dragons so close to the descriptions of some dinosaurs when the stories of dragons predate both the discovery of dinosaurs and the widespread knowledge of large reptiles? Tales of dragons go back thousands of years in what is now Europe and back to 1600 BCE in Asia, but if you look at art and stories, a healthy percentage of them bare an uncanny likeness to what would be discovered only in the last couple hundred years. Now I'm fully aware the comparative dinosaurs died out tens of millions of years ago and that dragons aren't real -- I’m clearly a moron, but not a wildly insane moron. So what gives? Why are these stories so close when they should have no logical point of reference?

I was wondering, because Wikipedia says that the usage of chlorine gas in the First World War, while ubiquitous on both sides, was actually in direct defiance of the Hague Convention of 1899 and 1907, which all major participants signed. The same goes for Germany's invasion of Belgium. Was there ever any action taken afterwards by the international community to denounce the practice? What happened in regard to Belgium?

When I read about the annexation of Korea, I found only 2 events:

• In 1876, a single Japanese boat bombards 2 places in Korea, and leaves.
• In 1910, Korea surrenders to Japan.

There was no mention of any battles of any significance (that my cursory search could find).

I am from Bulgaria, and my country has actually been occupied without us putting up a fight twice, during WW2 - first by Germany, then by the USSR. But in both cases, the disparity in the military strength was such that there was no point in resisting, and there were armies right outside our borders ready to invade.

But there was no mention of Japan landing an army in Korea, and I assume that they would have at least waited for it to land before surrendering.

So what happened?