I understand that Germany had already been pushing the envelope with their previous land grabs, and that the Allies had promised to protect Poland's sovereignty. Why did they allow the Russians invade Poland seemingly with little consequence?

I'm not overly concerned with one country so examples from anywhere including the United States would be great. My question is this, what would be a more likely career?? for a man of wealth or an aristocrat/"poor" or minor aristocrat(such as Lord Keith). My understanding is that the navy at least in the British RN, that there would have been more "social"? mobility for someone in the navy with talent since the navy had done away with the buying of commissions. I assume it would depend on the individual's wealth and connections but seeing as both the navy and the army during war could be very deadly even to an officer. (I may be off on this part since I am mostly thinking about of the battles during the Napoleonic wars,higher usage of rifleman and battles such as the siege of Badajoz.) If one would have been seen as more suited to a certain social status compared to the other. Such as those with more wealth or connection would end up in the army and that the navy was seen as a place for people bellow "their" own social status had to go.

Like the title said i am looking for a book about the qin dynasty war tactics, something that tell me how many people they had and how did they win and conquer all china Thanks for your help.

I'm an American living in London, and I've noticed that the pubs here almost always have names beginning with "The." For example, The Marlborough Arms, The Lamb, The Queen's Larder, The Crown & Anchor, The Dolphin.

But the bars I was familiar with in the US rarely (though there are exceptions) had "The" in their names. Kern's Korner, Bambi Bar, O'Shea's, Flanagan's, Nowhere Bar, Zanzabar [sic], Four Pegs, Mag Bar, etc.

For what historical reasons are British and American naming conventions different for pubs/bars? Or am I just flat-out wrong in my perceptions?

I've just begun reading 'Guns, Germs and Steel', Jared Diamond is explaining the expansion into Alaska through the Bering Straight by our early ancestors.

My question is, as Alaska and Siberia are still very close and easy to get to in modern history; why didn't we have explorers from Pre-Russia or Siberian civilizations accessing North America before the expansion across the Atlantic Occured

We can look at virtually any period of history, The Slave trade, Columbus' treatment of the Native Americans, torture in the middle ages, the holocaust, Mass raping and pillaging during invasions. I could go on.

There are still social injustices in the world, look at syria at the moment, Rwandan Genocide etc. Yet it is undeniable that we live in a less violent times and the majority of people would be appalled by certain things that used to be the norm. I.E. Slavery or persecution of a group of people.

How have we changed? Has a long standing history caused us to evolve? If so how?

Or has more regulation and global law preventing a true nature of the cruelty of humanity?

Was it anywhere near as advanced as Egyptian medicine?

I'm looking for something that focuses on history before contact with European colonists. Something general would be preferred, but if nothing like that exists I don't mind studying specific tribes/regions.

Just asking what is on the title; there are many examples of multiple wives to one husband, but I've never heard of the inverse. Did anything like this ever exist? If so, can anyone here give me any more information about them? Thanks!

A while ago I went to Cambodia, and noticed, particularly at the museum in Phnom Penh, that a great number of statues were missing their head and their right hand.

I sort of understand why one would take the head, since you can mount it on its own as a looter, but why the right hand?

I'm sure that this isn't exclusive to Cambodia, and happens in the entire region, but I noticed this specifically in Cambodia.

I rewatched that band of brothers episode where they storm carentan and when a GI gets hit by a bomb inside a house he looks at his crotch and the medic says he's fine. This piked my curiosity as to how common these wounds were on both sides.

Much is made of the role artillery played in WWI and the wars of several centuries before that, but how did artillery develop to fit in battlefields of WWII, particularly on the European western front?

Specifically, how did it cope with what seems to be smaller and faster moving units than were seen in previous conflicts, along with greater employment of tanks and airplanes which had seen advancements of their own? What technical innovations, if any, for artillery were involved?

I'm talking about the Republicans, Democrats, Populists, and Greenbacks (Please restrict answers from 1877-1900).

This ofc concerns the time when spain had colonies in America.

Thanks in advance for any answers!

how was it explained during medieval times? did people think it was witchcraft?

My grandfather was involved in action during the battle as part of the 2nd Infantry Division, 23 Infantry Regiment, 1st Battalion, Baker Company. He was wounded September 2, 1950.

He has started to lose his memory and has asked me to put together some information about this engagement. I have the Wikipedia article and the declassified after action reports, but I am looking for personal accounts.

I know it's a long shot, but maybe some one who served in first battalion or their children, or grandchildren are on reddit.

Any help would be appreciated and thank you for your time.

I am not trying to be offensive or racist in anyway, i am just curious. I mean, in those times it is not like the majority of the white population were releasing them because of benevolance, so in that case why did they not just forcibly remove them, I do not really see what the point was of allowing them to stay in the United States if they did not even like them to begin with. Also how come the African American population just not leave the country since they were being discriminated against so much after slavery.

A silly question that came up while playing Company of Heroes. I know conscripts were not always issued a rifle. What became of the battlefield small arm acquisitions after the skirmish? Was it common practice to keep what you found until issued something, or would they turn equipment in to be re-issued in a more structured fashion? I know tanks could get 're-branded', but what of the Mausers?

I recently watched the film Z and was wondering how close to the truth it was. Obviously, as one of the earliest political film I wouldn't expect it to treat the events even handedly, but were events of the film fairly accurate? Were the Greek Authorities really only driven by communist paranoia and self preservation as the film suggests?