There's a researcher named Alex Wellerstein who studies nuclear weapons history. He's done some AMAs here and posts on /r/askhistorians occasionally. He keeps a blog called Restricted Data. If you search around on it, there's lots of cool stuff. This post gets a little into your question. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/11/13/when-did-the-allies-know-there-wasnt-a-german-bomb/

Also, there's a BBC podcast called The Bomb. I don't think it was great, but there's enough useful info on it to make it worth listening to. But a few of the episodes address your question.

You might find this interview with Patricia Tilburg interesting. It's about women working in the garment industry in France at the time you're curious about. It talks about their sexualized image and their depiction in advertising and gets into ideas of working women, their independence and their sexuality as popularly perceived.

https://newbooksnetwork.com/working-girls

It's impossible to know, and I'm an institutionalist, so my bias comes from that POV, but I don't think it would have mattered. The problem with the USSR had more to do with corrupt and ineffective institutions, and that's carried through to the modern day. This treaty, and pretty much any other treaty like it, would just be putting different curtains on the windows. It wouldn't have done anything to fix a court system to make enforceable contracts, or to protect people from the government, or to make the incentives for public employees to not be corrupt, or to make businesses competitive in the world markets. Also, as countries like the Baltic states and Poland improved their economies, the failure would have been more apparent and created resentment. I think it would have just delayed Ukrainian independence for a little while, but that's probably it.

Also, Dominion did cherry pick quotes. B/c they were making a case for themselves. Its' fox's job to defend the case, not dominions. So, yeah obviously Dominion picked the stuff that supported their position.

The Fox spokesperson who said that should be thrown into the sea.

If you could de-extinct 1 animal b/c of it's contribution to the environment which would it be? If you could de-extinct 1 just for coolness which would it be?

And if you could de-extinct one but wouldn't b/c it knows what it did, which would it be?

Yeah, it's the volume that deals mostly with WWII. It was good. I would recommend it.

There's a fairly recent book out called Half American that talks about the service of Black Americans in the military and specifically mentions some of this units accomplishments. The book was great and I'd really recommend it. It's by Matthew Delmont.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/16/books/review/half-american-matthew-f-delmont.html

Yeah, I have that one in my TBR pile.

I enjoy the period around the US Civil War, so my favorites are from that period. I really like the Walter Stahr bios. He has a recent one out on Salmon Chase and an older one on Seward, but the one on Stanton is my favorite. I also really liked Allen Guelzo's Redeemer President on Lincoln. I think that's my favorite bio on Lincoln I've read.

Outside of that period I would maybe check out The Fire Is Upon Us by Nick Buccola. It's not quite a biography. It's about the debate between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley at the Cambridge Union. It gets into both people's lives and is very biographical, but it also has a lot of implications for current politics and the beginning of media driven soundbites that really drive the reasoning of the right.

Thomas Asbridge has a good one on William Marshal. It's pretty short, it's well written, and has good notes if you find an area you want to learn more about. Marshal is a goods subject b/c he's got a Forest Gumpy quality for that period of England. He was around all the big players, went on crusade, was a popular tourney knight, etc. It's called The Greatest Knight. It's a great place to start for English knights. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23456467-the-greatest-knight

I wonder if you could get Andre Codrescu to talk about it. He's a writer and does some experimental and surrealist writing, but he used to be a contributor on NPR and has written a lot about Ceausecu.

It wouldn't be exactly historically pertinent, but he could tell you about opposition and arts there. He had a podcast called Walls and Curtains that was kind of on that topic.

https://www.codrescu.com/

I've got a couple of things you might be interested in. There's the Atlantic World of Anthony Benezet. He's kind of the OG of protestant abolitionism in the Americas. It's a collection edited by Marie-Jeane Rossignol and Bertrand Ruymbeke.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31110792-the-atlantic-world-of-anthony-benezet-1713-1784

There was a good interview with Luke Harlow on the New Books network about his book on religion and abolitionism and slavery in Kentucky. He claims Kentucky is great to examine the issues b/c it was a microcosm of everything else going on in the US at the time. https://newbooksnetwork.com/luke-e-harlow-religion-race-and-the-making-of-confederate-kentucky-1830-1880-cambridge-up-2014-4

PBS has an episode of Africans in America on Lemuel Haynes which is also worth checking out. I might also look for stuff on Richard Allen and Absalom Jones.

I read Maria Arana's book, Silver, Sword, and Stone last week. It's not really a history book, but I didn't figure that out until about halfway through. In the epilogue she says it's not a history book and that probably would have worked better in the preface. But it was an interesting read. It tried to trace back problems in Latin America to the conquest by focusing on silver mining and greed, violence (sword), and religion (stone).

It was an interesting book and I enjoyed it. I'm not sure I found her argument very convincing b/c I lean towards the institutionalists' explanation. But it was a good book. She uses interesting people to try and highlight her points. There was some really interesting stuff on the modern impact of mining in South America. B/c of the current state of Venezuela most of the mining there is illegal with huge environmental repercussions. It wasn't very long and covered a lot of territory. It's a decent survey of the topic and would make a good airplane book. I don't think I'd recommend it if you already know something on the topic.

That's on my list. She did an interview on History Extra Podcast a little bit ago. The website wants me to sign up for premium for a link, but I found it in my podcast app easily.

The point of the meets and bound, or later township and ranges, is just to show that it was important that property be visible. You had to have outward signs of occupation. Someone can't be trespassed or ousted if there's no outward sign they were possessing the land tortiously. Part of trespassing is that you are occupying the land in knowing violation of the owner's consent. So, hidden markers would hinder your ability to oust a trespasser.

Liberia from the US would be an example and Sierra Leone for the former British colonies.

You can find them on the Library of Congress's oral history project too.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/slave-narratives-from-the-federal-writers-project-1936-to-1938/about-this-collection/

I think this is confusing the journalism term "burying the lead" which can be spelled alternatively as lede and the word lede in the sense of leode, leod, or ledd which referred to the people tied to an allotment of land. You would be given land and lede, meaning the land and the labor of the people who lived there as your vassals. I've cut and pasted the OED entry below. But "Burying the lead/lede" starts showing up in the 1950s if you check it's etymology. Lede in the sense of the vassals and land is an Old English word dating to the 14th century.

Also, I've done a decent amount of reading on law of discovery and the development of property rights and surveying in the US, so this doesn't rule out anywhere else. I've also read a little on the Spanish. I've read a ton of old deeds from pioneer days in the US. I've never seen a buried lead marker and it doesn't really make sense. You want your claim to be visible to others so normally things were nailed to trees, scratched in rocks, or made somehow visible to others. You would do stuff like build a small fort to show that you've put labor into the area, even if you're not actually using it yet. But you wanted to create a visible sign of occupation and boundary to give other's notice.

And if you read old deeds, before a surveyor come come and mark everything off in terms of longitude, latitude, and chain length, they refer to visible landmarks. They'll say stuff like "Eastern boundary is X creek from from the creek branch, south 600 paces to the large oak tree. Southern boundary is from along X creek continuing to fence line of Sanders farm." The important thing again is that the boundaries are visible.

Not having it visible wouldn't help anyone show anything. The other problem is that the ground moves. Depending on where you buried something, how much water goes through the area, and the slope, where you bury stuff is going to move.

b. plural. In the alliterative phrase land and lede, i.e. land and vassals or subjects.

OE Andreas (1932) 1321 Hafast nu þe anum eall getihhad land ond leode.
c1330 Arth. & Merl. 86 And gaue him bothe land and lede To help his childer after his day.
1377 W. Langland Piers Plowman B. xv. 520 When Constantyn..holykirke dowed With londes and ledes lordeshipes and rentes.
?c1475 Sqr. lowe Degre 135 I wyll forsake both land and lede, And become an hermyte.
a1500 (▸?c1400) Sir Triamour (Cambr.) (1937) l. 1269 Y make the myn heyre Of londe and of lede.
a1500 Merchant & Son l. 7 in W. C. Hazlitt Remains Early Pop. Poetry Eng. (1864) I. 133 He was a grete tenement man, and ryche of londe and lede.

>Forced conversions were pretty rare for Muslims (that's just not a thing they do as a rule, two arguments: the Quran says not to do so, and non Muslim can be a source of cash with special taxes).

You'll see some posts on /r/askhistorians about this too. But one other kind of obvious reason that the western idea of mass forced conversion, or conversion by the sword, just doesn't pan out is that often Muslims were a small minority in an area. You can't just go mass convert everyone when they have a 100 to 1 advantage over you. So it rarely happened, but there were governmental and institutional advantages to converting. You could get better patronage. There were specific additional taxes for non believers. You had a right to participate in conquest and gain land, etc. So there were lots of good practical reasons to convert.

This distrusts, and some earlier Muslims people retaining benefits only to their own class, and denying them to the new converts, manifested in the Shi'a/Sunni split. A lot of the later converting groups felt that they weren't getting their fare share of opportunities and saw Ali as willing to address that. It's not the total explanation, but part of how the split developed.

Some of what you'd expect, there were Jewish and Christian communities there. The Christian community is actually kind of interesting b/c they were a Gnostic sect that believed there was kind of a heist to move Jesus out of his tomb and that's the version of Christianity that Muhammad was familiar with so it shows up in hadith a lot. There were Zoroastrians. These are the groups usually described as dhimmi.

There were also pre Abrahamic religions, like the Yazidi we heard about with ISIS. There were some of the cults from Roman times still hanging out,. And besides Zoroastrianism, there were some other religious groups from Persia, like the Manichean. There was even some Buddhism.

But there was a lot of idol worship. It's stuff that was varied, but would include household/tribal gods, ancestor worship, and animism. Before Islam, the Kabba was actually surrounded by idols from all these different groups and was already an area of regional worship.

Basically there was a lot of stuff, as you would expect from an area that served as kind of a crossroads of the ancient world. They got beliefs from the east and west going through. Some beliefs were adopted, some had parts taken and amalgamated into new religions or combined with older religious traditions.

Karen Armstrong is a popular writer and has a short history of Islam that you might like.

Yes. There's a great book you might want to check out called Masters of Empire about the Anishinaabe people, they include the Ojibwe, Odawa, Algonquin, Mississaguas among others. The book is by Michael McDonnell. It's a fascinating book that explains their extensive trade networks, their conflicts with their neighbors and how they played the English, French and Iriquois off each other to protect their interests.

But they're trading networks went all the way down the Mississippi and to the coast. They'd have access to salt from the salt mines in Southern Illinois and the various salt creeks like the other poster mentioned, but also from the Hudson bay and hypothetically, if it had been necessary, from the gulf coast.

There's a new book that came out last year called Seeing Red by Michael Witgen that picks up after the period described in Masters of Empire that looks good too, if you're interested in this area of the world.

Here's a great talk with McDonnel at the James Madison lecture series. https://youtu.be/bodjl3rXWxw

Ross King has been at the Free Library of Philadelphia a few times. I always enjoy his talks. His one on the Bookseller of Florence was really interesting. I would recommend listening to all of them. He's really engaging.

Here's the link to his hit results on their author events talks: http://libwww.freelibrary.org/podcast/?q=Ross+King

There's been a few AMAs on /r/askhistorians about piracy from people promoting their books. This one sounds like it would be the closest to what you're asking about: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9gv3ax/iama_history_lecturer_who_is_an_expert_on_the/

Another: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/k04tmz/ama_the_golden_age_of_piracy/

Another: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fpy0w/wednesday_ama_piracy_from_antiquity_to_the_present/

And this is a little tidbit from my local history society. It' hypothesizes that Sir. Francis Drake actually was in Oregon when he came up the Pacific coast and not north of San Francisco. I don't really buy it, but it is fun and she raises some interesting issues about language that kind of highlight the difficulties of assessing what these early explorers meant when they didn't know the languages or the different peoples they were encountering. https://youtu.be/oPq92OMJnBE

There's another Pirate Queen book by Rebecca Simon. She did an AMA at /r/askhistorians: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wk2yfu/ama_female_pirates/

Paul Corner has a new book on Mussolini that came out at the end of December that might be worth checking out. He has a lot of work on the topic in general, although a chunk of it is in Italian. But you might want to check his stuff out. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/969911.Paul_Corner