I often hear about how it was very strong (firepower and armor), but I also hear that the issues of it make it a very bad tank. How bad was it really? I don't mind if it's about the Tiger I or II. Also how much fuel did it burn relative to other tanks?

I have googled this but nothing really gave me a straight answer. How come the US and British government supported the Khmer Rouge and did they know about Pol Pot’s crimes at the time?

Hi! I'm a trained Holocaust Historian (MA, 2014), and I currently work as an archivist with a Jewish historical institution. I continue to conduct my own work as an independent historian, and lately I've become concerned that my command of Holocaust historiography has some massive gaps. Which scholars/books would you list as necessary for the field? (my present subfield is Jewish resistance; past subfields: immigration, refugees, Shanghai refugee community)

I did, of course, did check the sub booklist! And I am aware of those works and scholars.

If not, where were they during the battle?

Many shows and movies make a show of military leaders leading the charge. Leading by example would have to be weighed against protecting the leadership.

[deleted]

I know that even with the availability of clean water in 2019 in many places of the world, people still operate their daily lives slightly dehydrated (if you feel “thirsty” then you are dehydrated).

I also know many people got their fluids from alcohol or other sources than water. I’m just trying to imagine a serf working a field for example and he not being dehydrated in the summer sun?

Hi y'all -- I'm looking for a book or a few articles that explain Gompers's economic views, with particular reference to the role of the state.

In "Out of Our Past," for example, Degler wrote: "All during [Gompers's] leadership of the AFL, labor had consistenly refused to accept … government intervention at the bargaining table of labor and business." I'd like to understand the reasoning behind this a bit better.

I know that a new book by Norman Finkelstein is forthcoming, but reviewers say it's "fact-filled but interpretation-light," hence probably not what I'm looking for.

Thanks in advance

I'd never heard of the Codex Gigas before but I was reading up on the origin of the 'pact with the devil' trope and came across the story of how a monk who essentially wrote the Codex Gigas in one night after making a deal with the devil, and that this is why it contains a big illustration of the devil.

I become pretty fascinated with this thing, and after doing some research I can't really see any straight up answers about what the original reason behind the creation of this manuscript was, and in particular why the devil seems to be depicted so prominently.

Of course, for all I know, the depiction of the devil on manuscripts like this was commonplace, but everything I can read on the Codex seems to focus on this depiction, which makes me think it is notable for some reason or another. If such a prominent depiction is not that unusual, I'm interested in why there seems to be a satanic association with the document (conspiracy theories about missing pages etc).

I guess in large part my question can be broken into:

• Do we know why the codex was created?
• Why is (or is it at all) this manuscript notable? Is it because of the depiction of the devil, its contents, its state of preservation or something else?
• Assuming the depiction of the devil is notable, what is the going theory for its inclusion?
• Why is there so much conspiracy around the Codex Gigas? For instance, there are some missing pages, which I've some some speculation being that they used to contain satanic prayers. When did this sinister mythos attach itself to the Codex Gigas' story and why?

Anyway if anyone is familiar with this topic I'd be grateful for your insight.

Lee was respected on both sides but with the Civil War still just about in living memory, I would have thought Sherman a more divisive namesake. Did any southerners raise objections to naming the Sherman after the general who had laid such waste to the region?

As far as I've been able to read, nothing in the Treaty of Pressburg, or really anything following the War of the Third Coalition obligated Francis to take that action. I also know that Francis also made himself Emperor of Austria, and held that title simultaneously with that of Holy Roman Emperor for three years. Was creating the former Empire in anticipation of losing the latter title? Or did Francis initially seek to keep both? Even so, why give up such a prestigious title when nothing forced him to do so?

I'm very interested in the history of eating disorders. In modern times, it's quite obvious that eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, are very often tied into the way our society perceives diets and the 'perfect' body. This, along with social media, makes eating disorders increasingly more common. However, social media and the internet are very recent things, and the ideal body type today isn't what it was centuries ago. So I would like to know, are there any records of eating disorders in the past? Were these illnesses similar to how they are today, or were there different eating disorders before that don't exist now?

Title

I guess to get us towards an answer.

Let's focus on late 1800's USA, or somewhere around that time.

Was it common for this to happen? Where there laws to protect this from happening or to protect a bounty Hunter if this happened?

An integral part of US frontier history is seemingly centered around building railways, connecting remote areas with the major coastal cities, moving cattle, and moving new settlers around. Why is the modern US seemingly devoid of railway construction and usage, but dominated by plane, truck and car?

​

This seems even stranger when considering that railways are more energy efficient than trucks in moving goods.

I was in a discussion with some coworkers about WWII and we talked about swedens part in WWII.

Two of my colleagues told me that Sweden actively collaborated with the nazi government and that they were in league with them. They also told me that Sweden actively helped the germans invade denmark, which was completely new information for me. I have tried finding more information about these topics and I cannot find a single word saying that sweden actually helped in the invasion of denmark, and all i can find about swedish actions during the war is that they did what the germans requested of them (troop transportations and iron ore shipments), but secretly passing on german communications to the allies and trained danish/norwegian troops. I also found information that sweden actually had plans to "save" denmark and norway with Operation Rädda Danmark and Operation Rädda Norge.

The information i found and what my coworkers told me seems to conflict with each other. So thats why im posing the question so that you hopefully can shed some light on this topic.

I was watching song of the South (first time) and the boy called the black woman "Aunt". So that got me to thinking, how did they explain her "relationship" to him?

I imagine it was somewhat controversial whether to tell them the truth or that they're some distant family. Somewhat like today's controversy of giving vaccines to children.

If anyone needs me to explain more let me know because I know that came out kind of messy.

And don't worry. I will come back and do some edits after I have more details of the movie. I just had to make this before I forget about it.