I was watching Ken Burns fantastic Vietnam series and it seemed like the US never tried to make a serious push towards Hanoi either from the south or from say a coastal invasion D-day style. It seems like instead we mostly took

hills in the jungle just to give them up again. Like the documentary points out they hoped to win by simply killing enough VC and North Vietnamese so they couldn't keep fighting. Am I right in thinking we never planned a real offensive campaign that went significantly into the north? If so there must have been a reason, because we feared China would enter the war like they did in Korea? Or some other logistical or strategic reason?

My grandfather was a Royal Engineer, and he worked on Mulberry Harbours, which were some kind of pontoon for landing stuff? But I don't know much about them.

As well as working on them in Britain, he went to Normandy the day after D-Day to build them there or something, so I was wondering how that worked.

Upvote what you enjoyed, post what you don't see here!

By 'colonial troops', I mean soldiers who either volunteered or were conscripted from the populations of faraway colonies in India, Africa, the Pacific, etc. Did the different nations treat their colonial troops like cannon fodder, were they treated somewhat equally with the white soldiers, etc?

I'm reading "The conquest of Mexico" by Bernard Diaz del Castillo again. The spaniards argue against human sacrifices and "sodomy" the Aztecs (and Tlaxlatecs and others) all practiced.

I wonder what that 16th century spaniard could have ment by sodomy, was it homosexuality or some other sexual habits? Do we have contemporary explanations?

I'm sort of assuming there was such a thing as "street food" - quick grub to go for the busy Mexica artisan or trader or whatnot.

[deleted]

In light of recent news of President Trump's planned use of tanks in 4th of July celebrations, I was curious to know if any of the military branches had ever been used for a 4th of July parade by past presidents. Or, more broadly, were there any parades out of wartime where the US military was included? At the very least, I'm aware there were military style parades during the 1910's and 40's during the height of the World Wars. However, considering the state of world politics and how morale at home would affect the front lines at the time, this is somewhat expected.

​

I'm rather more curious about the US military's use outside of morale-boosting military parades during war time. If there were parades that used the US military, how were they viewed at the time? If I had to guess, I wouldn't be surprised if there parades of this sort during the height of the Cold War in the 50's and 60's.

​

Any suggestions for sources and future reading is always appreciated :)

I’m working on a paper for school and came across a topic that I’m having a hard time comprehending. I understand that during the American Revolution, there was tons of conflict within the colonies and between the different classes. How did they end up fighting the British together? Especially when the outcome was only supposed to benefit the American elite?

I've been trying to research this but haven't gotten anywhere so I thought I would turn to the pros. Looking at the units chosen by the Americans for the Normandy invasion the 29th Infantry Division stands out as odd. The 1st Infantry Division, their counterpart at Omaha was a veteran regular Army formation that had already conducted 2 assault landings, and from what I can tell in my own research fared better than the 29th. The other American division at Utah was the 4th and although not a veteran unit, was at least regular Army and consisted of troops from various locations, unlike the 29th being a National Guard formation. Also, there were, at the very least, 2 further veteran divisions available that would later fight in Normandy - the 9th Infantry Division and the 2nd Armored Division.

Can someone with appropriate knowledge on the subject educate me on the factors that allowed Japanese people in early 1400's to not be infected by diseases from Portuguese? Or later once the Americans opened the trade routes how diseases seemed to not impact the island nation?

To start off, I want to say that I am not trying to brag when I say this warning but here it is:

I am very smart, I could try harder, but I honestly am bored at school besides in History class. I am pretty good at math (but it is my weakest subject) and I am very good at science. I hate both of those. Like, I honestly would rather work at McDonald's than in a math or science heavy field. So, I have searched and searched for the past year but I have ran into the same answers. Become a professor/teacher, librarian, historian, lawyer, writer....... I have heard "Don't become a lawyer, it sucks and there is a lot of debt. Don't become a teacher, a librarian, a writer.... and it goes on and on. I also have heard "It's a useless degree" and "your undergrad doesn't matter, so do whatever you want".

​

I wanted to ask what careers are feasible with a History degree. I want to work WITH History, not just get a business job or something because it is easy to get. I have seen mixed responses when doing internet research. Some people say that is is a great degree and you can do a lot with it, while others say that it is not worth it. I have a huge passion for History and my dream is to be a 'Historian' (broad term) and basically be paid to travel the world. If you know who Josh Gates is (Expedition Unknown), I would love to do what he does. I would also love to be an archaeologist as I love ancient civilizations (ancient Greece) the most in History. Realistically though, my parents are pushing me to be a Lawyer. I love to argue and have strong opinions but I am put off by the debt and also the fact that there are more graduates than jobs available. I also would like to go to Japan/South Korea to study abroad. I have a huge interest in these countries and would also like to work there one day. This is a lot, but I was wondering if there were feasible careers that would allow me to sustain myself in what I mentioned. I would really love to major in History, but the problem is getting a good, stable job after I get my degree. Any help would be immensely appreciated.

​

Note: I live in Kentucky, and will be going to Western Kentucky University if that helps with specific information on what to do while in college. Thanks!

Nagumo wrote in his June 15 after action report that "The enemy is not aware of our plans (we were not discovered until early in the morning of the 5th at the earliest)." How could they think that the American carriers were just coincidentally lurking in the perfect place to launch an ambush on the Combined Fleet? The Japanese had just come home from the Coral Sea, where they had also just unexpectedly encountered American carriers.

In contrast to the British, who were incredibly cautious about revealing they had cracked Enigma, the Americans essentially pounced on their first chance to use their advantage. Was there any controversy about tipping their hand so early?

What is the extant evidence for what Shang society was like? Is it the Shiji plus archaeological artefacts, basically? What sort of material do we have in oracle bone script?

Since they controlled France and the French territories I’m wondering why they didn’t do this.

[deleted]

[deleted]

In contemporary Western culture, actors are considered some of the most prestigious members of society, probably along the same level of repute as elite businesspeople or politicians, and just below classical musicians and processors.

Yet a couple hundred years ago this wasn't true at all. In Shakespeare's London, the theater was considered to be pretty populist and low-class. Sure he might have performed for the Queen, but his plays were also popular entertainment. The Globe Theater was also, from what I understand, in a pretty dodgy neighborhood filled with brothels. Meanwhile in Italy, there was apparently significant crossover between commedia dell'arte actors and prostitutes. In parts of the Middle East until very recent times, female performers were universally associated with prostitutes and considered incredibly shameful.

So when was the theater elevated as an art form that could not only be appreciated by members of the upper class, but also be performed by this class? I get the impression that by the late 1800s, acting in England was considered to be pretty high-brow. However, the description of Thespians in The Portrait of Dorian Gray suggests that by 1890, theater was still associated with vice and abjection at least among snobs such as the title character.

I get the impression that this transition predates film and television. So what, if not technology, precipitated this pretty serious change in reputation?

I was looking at a map of countries whose languages are of the Indo-European family, and I couldn’t help but notice that Hungary is not one of them. This is especially glaring because all of the countries surrounding Hungary have languages from that family. Why is this?

So I recently watched a lecture that claimed JFK's assassination was a conspiracy and the speaker seemed to dive in deep into the nitty gritty details of documents and interviews just about as much as a historian. They talked about niche topics like gun powder and although I disagree with them, it's clear they did a ton of research and didn't just form this conclusion in one night. In fact some of them have been passionate about this issue for decades. Obviously, historians and conspiracy theorists both reached very different conclusions, and I was wondering what are the differences between a historian and conspiracy theorist's methodologies for topics like these? Do historians simply have better access to records? Are they secretly conspiracy theorist but don't come out in order to keep their jobs? Or do they simply not dive deep enough? I've only heard that historian's research analysis is far more rigorous and scientific than we give them credit for. Forgive me if I sound ignorant; I don't frequent this sub and not really a big history person.

What do you think?

EDIT: Another question I've thought of... What if you make a conspiracy theorist go through a BA+ MA + Ph.D program? Would s/he change his or her process? Why? Would they continue to use it? Would it be a game changer?