Vote for the answer(s) you love, submit any you love and don't see here.

Sorry, April Fools answers are ineligible!

My understanding of Israeli policy is that they continued to operate on the idea that build-ups and acts which likely were preceding an attack were to be met preemptively, a policy they had already shown a willingness to follow through with in 1967 following the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran and mobilization. Yet in 1973, they were apparently caught with their pants down. Not that it resulted in catastrophe obviously, but nevertheless the fact that Israel only seemed to catch on mere hours before launch seems to be a fairly massive failure in intelligence and planning.

Given how central this all was to Israel's simple survival, the failure only looms larger. How did such massive and (without hindsight) potentially fatal oversight develop? What signs were being missed, what was being dismissed?

Additionally, once the assessment did change just prior to the impending attack, Israel obviously chose not to attempt a first strike, I presume for a mix of strategic (too late now, so let just let the Arab states look worse) and pragmatic (we only have a few hours to put this shit together), so what degree of emergency mobilization prior to the actual commencement of hostilities were they able to pull off in that small time frame?

Also as a side note, what happened to the intelligence personnel who screwed up?

I'm talking here about internal Soviet history specifically, not just the whole Cold War diplomatic game.

It seems like every book I come across on Soviet history has an ENORMOUS bias. Either they're pro-Soviet "everything bad is just propaganda" or it's pro-Western "the Soviets killed people because that's what Socialism means". Or at least, that's how it feels.

Obviously, every history book has a bias, but the biases on Soviet history are just so distracting and make me question them in both directions.

My own biases are towards Libertarian Socialism, so I'm not a fan of either the pro-Soviet or pro-Western approaches. I just want to know what happened and come to my own conclusions.

The oldest Gathas are said to be compiled 1700BC (from linguistic analysis) and the Rigveda is considered to be around that time as well. Did the Gathas predate it, or maybe they are contemporary?

Media popularly portrays Native Americans as unused to alcohol, prone to alcohol abuse, and that this was deliberately taken advantage of by European traders and colonists. But do we have any accounts from indigenious Americans themselves regarding alcohol from the colonial period? What did they think of it?

Hello! I'm writing an essay about the cuban missile crisis of 1962. I want to ask you about some good literature about it? It needs to be written by either a historian or someone in the political sciences. Thanks in advance!

I have an assignment which requires 2 textual sources on your site, mine being Chichen Itza. I have scoured all of the top google results and haven't found anything. These sources can be diary entries, personal accounts, poems, observations or any of that sort. Am I missing out on any sort of databases which may help me? Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

Hi all, I’m looking for advice on any significant developments in theory of history in the past two decades or so. Something like a new “Civilization and Capitalism”.

By way of background: I studied history at the Moscow University, and got my PhD in 2009, but then left academia. Moreover, post-Soviet historical education is shaky on theory anyway, in my experience (blame decades of institutionalized, lobotomized Marxism). Back then, we drew most of our understanding of history from the Annales School - Bloch was the first love, and Braudel (longue durée) remains my main methodological tool for understanding the past (and present). Of course, there were Marx, Toynbee, even Adam Smith etc., but they are Newton to Annales’ Einstein IMO.

But Annales peaked half a century ago. And so I’m wondering, what is state of the art in modern historical science? I know Wallerstein (to the extent that’s history) and postmodernism (and Jared Diamond, yes), but beyond that? I’m talking methodological framework - theories explaining historical processes that merit attention and/or are popular in the professional community in the 21 century? My evil-tongued ex-classmates say there are no such things, but I would be glad to any pointers that show otherwise.

[deleted]

Was Nazism more revolutionary than Italian Fascism? Or was it more conservative?

[deleted]

Like the title says in fewer words, how did humans transition from learning naturally through their parents etc. (like how some animals do it now) to going to schools and being taught in groups for a set amount of time each day?

Is there a point in history that we can say “this started here for x reasons”?

[deleted]

Did the imperial army just get used to fighting the Swedish armies in between it's introduction and the time of Nordlingen? Did Gustavus Adolphus' leadership matter that much? Even then, what had changed between then, and the later Swedish victories in the 30 Year's War?

This is a question I’ve always wondered.

Slaves went from being classified as property, to being classified as American citizens.

Did the government give them land to begin with? Or jobs?

If I recall correctly, I think I read that, as crazy as it sounds, some slaves just chose to stay with their masters, because it was what they were used to their whole life.

Any help and clarification on this topic is greatly appreciated.

Thank you so much.

Is it true that allied soldiers didn't strap their helmets in WWII (specifically D-Day) and if so, why not?