From what I understand is that when General George B. McClellan and his army drove the Confederates out many pro-union representatives declared the northwestern counties of Virginia their own state. I was wondering if the people of West Virginia agreed with the Wheeling Convention of 1861 or wanted to remain part of a pro-union Virginia that consisted of all of what is now West Virginia and Virginia? How big a role did slavery have in the discussion on whether to break away from Virginia or not?

I tried posting this to /r/AskPhilosophy but it was removed, I guess because it wasn't specifically about philosophy.

I am reading 'The Three Body Problem' by Liu Cixin. In the first chapter there is a back and forth during a 'struggle session' which I can't fully understand. The character of Ye Zhetai is accused by his wife, Shao Lin, and several of his students, of anti-revolutionary teachings, in particular teaching the theory of general relativity. Shao says,

"...This is most apparent in general relativity: Its static model of the universe negates the dynamic nature of matter. It is anti-dialectical! It treats the universe as limited, which is absolutely a form of reactionary idealism.…"

One of the male Red Guards says,

"You also taught the big bang theory. This is the most reactionary of all scientific theories."

Shao also says,

"You have often lectured students on the reactionary Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics." [...] "This explanation posits that external observation leads to the collapse of the quantum wave function. This is another expression of reactionary idealism, and it’s indeed the most brazen expression."

I have an okay-ish understanding of General Relativity, the Big Bang and the Copenhagen interpretation of QM in the early 20th century. But I have very little knowledge of the philosophical terms used in this part of the book. Could anyone explain (as simply as possible for a layperson) how the revolutionaries in China saw these things as being so diametrically opposed to their philosophies?

I'm puzzled by this. During the late 19th century a huge influx of European immigrants came to the USA seeking better lives. But the late 19th century was a period of rampant inequality in the United States. During the gilded age when all those immigrants were moving out of Europe, was America actually more socially mobile and economically better than Europe at the time?

My parents grew up in Ukraine during this time and I'm curious to read about day to day life during this period so I can ask them more questions. What are some books I should read to help me get to know this period better. Doesn't need to be Ukraine-specific, just Soviet Union life in general anytime during this period.

I’m reading The Fires of Jubilee by Stephen Oates. It’s incredible and heartbreaking.

I keep coming back to the “terrible and sinister” papers Turner drew up. Supposedly they had strange drawings and numerological calculations.

Before he was captured, his wife Cherry was whipped until she surrendered them. I’ve looked all over the internet and cannot find anything about them.

Does anyone know if they were destroyed? Are they still held somewhere? Please and thank you.

I've been reading about the Second Punic War recently. As I imagine many people do when learning of it for the first time, I had asked myself the question of why Hannibal didn't attack Rome after the crushing victory at Cannae. After learning a little more, I found out the consensus is that he knew, for a number of reasons, he wouldn't be able to take it, and his time would be better spent ravaging the countryside and trying to cut Rome off from its allies.

But that led me to another question. I know why Hannibal didn't attack Rome, but why did Carthage not? After Cannae, the things I've read say that Rome had 2 legions left to protect her. While 2 legions and the city walls may have been too much for Hannibal's field army, with Rome's offensive strengthen virtually wiped out at Cannae, it seems like it would have been an opportunity for Carthage to consolidate the strength it had in Ibera, Africa, and Hannibal's army in Italy and launch a single attack on Rome.

Is there a reason that Carthage never marched on Rome?

Hey guys, first time ever using Reddit really. I'm currently building a scale model of the M4A3E8 Sherman, the model I got is based on the one featured in Fury, so it has multiple accessories including Jerry cans, crates, and what seem to be sleeping bags, but I can't be sure. I want to use actual fabric for some items, and I was wondering if someone could tell me what was usually stowed on Sherman's during the war. I tried Google but nothing came up surrounding the topic, so I figured I'd try here. Any help would be appreciated.

I'm writing a fantasy story, and while the sword is a common weapon in medieval fantasy and the like, most of what my research has shown is that it was more or less a symbol weapon. Since axes and hammers were better for most battlefield things, and spears and pikes tended to be more dangerous and used more for formation and layman's weapons.

​

How common were swords actually as a weapon for personal use, and how much of their use has been blown out of proportion?

My great grandparents fled the revolution. When I was a kid post USSR my baba would offhand make comments on USSR life and mentioned how racist the soviets were. As information on the soviet space program came out in the 90s, I remember they noticed the minorities who went to space and mentioned it was more soviet racism. That they only made public the successful launches of Russian men, and silenced often the failed launches tested on minorities, such as the woman heard on the Judica-Cordiglia recordings in Italy.

​

Which is true? Were the soviets progressive and practicing equality? Or were they using minorities as test dummies and getting them killed until they got it right?

In my understanding of WW2, it seems like the Nazis were on their way to winning. The United States was neutral in the war and wasnt hurting anyone. Then all of a sudden Japan bombed the US and gained an enemy which forced the US to go into the war and basically shift the weight so that the Axis would lose. I know that there were supporters of both sides in the US and that is why we weren't in the war in the first place.

I think an appropriate metaphor would be two guys are in a close fight but they're coming towards the end and one is on his way to winning. Then before the guy defeats his opponent, he attacks some third guy so it's 2 v 1 which makes him lose.

Was it hubris? A miscommunication between Japan and Germany? I don't doubt that its more complex than what I've explained but could somebody clear this up for me? I really don't see how attacking a powerful neutral party would benefit your side in a war. Any help appreciated.

[deleted]

A couple wears rings to signify they're taken. A gang member has a tattoo.

In Roman culture how did humans alter their appearance to communicate something to others?

Across social statuses what are the most common things to signal?

[deleted]

As we all know, WWII took an enormous toll on the Soviet Union. Did the loss of so many of its young men change relationship dynamics after the war? Was there an uptick of same-sex relationships among women due to a shortage of men?

I had a friend argue with me about this. I found it hard to believe. If this did happen, how common was it for this to be the reason. If it didn't, then why do women to this day take their husband's last names?

Thanks everyone!

What I mean to ask is, why did they use the same name again and again with a different number, like henry 1, henry 2.... henry 10. Couldn't they come up with names? Was there a reason for doing so or was it just pure laziness?

Something I've wondered since undergraduate days, do any of you lovely people take rebuttals and/or critiques of your work personally? As in, do you ever feel insulted by a colleague disagreeing with your work? I do socio-political analysis in the corporate sector and I have to admit, I have a tendency to get irritated when my work is criticised, fairly or not.