Hi guys.

I am about to write a large paper on the usage of chemical weapons during the Vietnam War. Therefore I was wondering if anyone possibly knows any primary sources about the usage of Agent Orange and the following consequences. Furthermore some sources about Operation Ranch Hand would be amazing.

If you could help I would be incredibly grateful and any help would be amazing

Mao Zedong has been credited with one of the most successful—or at least most widespread—programs of "thought reform" in history. A big part of this is bringing in the intellectuals and the bourgeoisie to have "self-criticism" sessions or "struggle sessions." What actually happened?

I'd love recommendations for any good book-length resources here, even fictional accounts. I think "The Three-Body Problem" opens with a kin of struggle session, but not sure how accurate that is. Feel free to PM me.

I see this has been asked a few times before, but I haven't seen an answer (am I blind?). Welcome any help!

The first rule of AskHistorians is a very basic one:

All users are expected to behave with courtesy and politeness at all times. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, or any other forms of bigotry. This includes Holocaust Denial. Nor will we accept personal insults of any kind.

It is one of the oldest rules of the subreddit, and one which has seen almost no change over the existence of the subreddit, as it speaks to a core principle of our mission here, helping to ensure that conversations remain respectful and productive even in the face of disagreement.

While we hope that the basic idea is simple and easy to grasp, nevertheless we are going to spend a little time today discussing its purpose, interpretation, and enforcement.

Why Is It Here?

Disagreement is a vital component of academic discourse, but academia has a set of standards that attempt to keep debates productive (e.g., the relatively dry style of most academic papers). While we never would wish to stifle valid, academic debate, we nevertheless recognize that even in the best of circumstances, users can get heated and a discussion can turn into an argument. But being louder doesn't make you righter. Nor does insulting the proponent of the other side make them wronger.

Respect is a core underpinning of a productive discussion between two opposing positions, and in the end, that is what we expect from our users. Passions can easily rise when a position is near and dear, but it does everyone a disservice to let them take over, especially the users reading along, who rather than coming away with a better understanding of the academic debate on a topic from both users' presentation, more often than not are simply going to be turned off by it all.

What Is Covered Under Civility?

There are three core prongs that this rule deals with:

• Insulting language or other forms of disrespect, whether directed at another user, or a person or people not present.
• Expressions of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.
• Ahistorical revisionism, such as (but by no means limited to) Holocaust Denial or Armenian Genocide Denial.

What Do the Mods Use to Decide This?

Each situation is handled in its own context. When it comes to incivility, there is no hard and fast guideline we can offer, but much of the time, it is fairly clear when this rule is being violated. We do our best to make sure we are evaluating the entire context of the comments, as something said in isolation can appear quite different in the flow of a conversation. We also do work to consider possible cross-cultural misunderstandings, and what the rest of someone’s Reddit posting says about their motivations and dispositions. As a user trying to follow the rule though, the best maxim to follow is the core of reddiquette as well, "Remember the human".

As for racism/sexism/bigotry, these are usually more clear cut. The simple answer is don't use those kinds of terms, whether directed at a user, or generally directed at the people it is used to denigrate. These will in almost all cases result in an immediate ban. We do realize that these terms are sometimes present in the historical record, but that doesn't somehow give license to sling them around. If they are appropriate for a legitimate answer to a question there is leeway of course, but we still ask writers to be considerate and empathetic in how they are used, such as by s******g out the word, or providing a content warning at the beginning.

Likewise, we recognize that some words may have different meanings for different cultures, being a slur in one country, while thoroughly reclaimed or simply lacking such implications elsewhere, such as is the case with "Queer" and its utilization trends, which for some is an identity and a field of academic study, but for others remains a slur tinged with hatred and bigotry. In situations like these, we again ask for users to simply be conscious and judicious in what words they might choose to use, and in what context.

But What If They Really Deserve The Insult!?

There are plenty of ways to counter an argument you disagree with that don't require stooping to invective. If it is simply an academic position you disagree with, please remember to be respectful and engage with their position. If they are participating in good faith, you need to as well. If they aren't worth any other response than insult, than don't respond. You can instead report the comment to the Mod Team and we'll handle the matter. Trying to handle the matter yourself at best just creates more for us to clean up, and quite possibly means you'll end up being warned as well.

Why Is Holocaust Denial Part of the Civility Rule?

Two reasons! The first is that bigotry is a core component of this rule, and Holocaust Denial is inherently Anti-Semitism. It necessarily requires the accusations of a massive conspiracy perpetrated by hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors engaging in an immense, coordinated lie on an unimaginable scale. Holocaust Deniers are Anti-Semites, and Anti-Semitism is a form of bigotry.

Secondly, while this is by no means the only rule under which denialism would easily fit, as it is the First Rule of the subreddit, we want it to be there front and center rather than buried half-way through the rules page. We have zero tolerance for people who deny atrocities such as the Holocaust or the genocide of Indigenous Americans, and believe that being clear about that from the start helps to set the tone about what kind of space this is intended to be.

Usernames

We also apply this rule to usernames. If a username includes a slur or obvious allusion to one, or otherwise peddles in patently offensive terminology, we will not allow that username to post. As long as the content otherwise followed the subreddit rules, we will generally suggest reposting under another username, and we have no interest in pursuing the issue of ban evasion as long as one uses a second username in good faith.

FREESPEECH!!

No, we are not violating your freedom speech. This is a private space which we curate to provide an enjoyable experience for people who are seeking it out. You don't have the right to ruin it for others. If you want a place where you can call people names without consequence, you'll find plenty options elsewhere, so please spare us your misunderstandings of the First Amendment.

Hey!? You Totally Misread That, Don't Remove It!!

We're only human, and we do make mistakes. If you believe that the rule was applied incorrectly to your comment, the best course of action is a short and polite message to the Mod team via Modmail. Clearly state your case and why you think it ought to be reversed. Worst that happens is we say no.

I read recently that many formerly enslaved people in America felt it was a priority to learn to read after the Civil War. How did they go about this? Were schools available for them or did they have other options?

I know you’ve probably heard this a billion times, but I’m becoming very interested in history. I have only a small idea of what the “Historian” title means in terms of daily work and routines.

Today we have DNA, security camera's, text-messages,... All ways of proving someone's guilt but what forms of proof were there in the medieval period en extending on that, in a period where the nobility held real power how could a king arrest one of them say when they conspired against him. What proof would he have so that the other nobles wouldn't revolt or so, or would it be very common for a king to arrest opponents as he didn't need any proof and there wouldn't be much of a reaction either?

Sorry if this isn’t the right sub to post in... Really I’m looking for handwritten letters of correspondence, from any time period and in any language. I just want a big pool from which to conduct some research but don’t know where to start, as google is coming up with pretty sparse results. Any help would be appreciated.

Everytime you see or read something about any war of the 20th Century, the topic of PTSD comes up, I was wondering if soldiers in Medieval times also got PTSD since the fighting was more up close and personal back then. Or is PTSD more related to the constant bombardments the those wars saw (shellshock)?

I know this is a somewhat broad question, though my understanding is that metallurgical problems arose (why?) for whatever reasons and that steel refining was a major issue.

I've hear stories about vehicles leaving the factory headed for staging areas only to have the armor crack just driving down the road. How broad were the issues in German AFV construction late in the war (43-45)?

PART TWO:

Also, how were German tank optics and rangefinders compared to their Allied and Soviet counterparts?

Slavery was abolished in Upper Canada in 1793, how big of an impact did this have?

Was slavery common in colder environments like ontario or the areas surrounding the hudson bay?

What kind of work would they have been put to?

Was it primarily black people or were eskimos also enslaved?

I'm confused as to why they went back to line firing and just walking straight into the enemy, even into artillery fire. When they fought the revolution war, they used guerilla warfare that was very effective. So why did they go back?

I am having a hard time looking for good videos, books or articles that focus on the internal splits of the Nazi party early on. Most of the stuff about Hitler and the nazis is obviously focused in the war and the genocide and so on. I would like to understand better who were the strasserists and why/how Hitler managed to best them

And if any of them have survived?

How did navy pilots find their way home after a mission without any electronic navigation aids like we use today? I know that the carrier fleets would have had the ability to do a DF Steer, for example, but that would give away the position of the carrier group to the enemy as well. If the fleet didn't move, then I suppose that basic Dead Reckoning works, but how did this actually play out in a combat environment where the ships are moving and the pilots are busy with tasks other than navigation. I'm particularly curious about fighters, since I know the bigger planes often had a dedicated navigator on board.

I'm reading a history of Saladin, and they mention an anecdote in which the Sunni residents of Alexandria rebuffed a request to turn over Saladin's uncle Shirkuh by citing the horror of turning over a Sunni to Shia rulers, and I'm kind of struck by how marked that level of religious opposition to the Ismaili religion of the Caliphate that had governed the region for generations. It seems odd that the Fatimids made virtually no dent in the religious makeup of Egypt during their entire rule. Why was this the case?

The military historian T.A Dodge created a considerable body of work in the early 20th century mostly on what he claimed to be "the Great Captains". How do historians today regard his work and the arguments he puts forward - Gustavus, Frederick, Caesar, Napoleon, Hannibal and Alexander being the greatest generals of all time, and why did he exclude figures such as Wellington, Khalid, Belisarius, or Temujin?

As I understand it, a PhD thesis must add something new and original to the field, but how does that work with history? It must be extremely difficult to add a new interpretation to something set in stone, especially one that would be approved. For example, if someone did their PhD thesis on ancient Rome, would they need to study ancient writings or archaeological sites to find something that nobody else has ever noticed?