One of the major plot lines of White Christmas has never made sense to me, but I figured it is from my lack of understanding the context.

Set post-WWII, when the Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye characters discover that their General from the army now owns a lodge, they feel very embarrassed for him.

Then Bing Crosby sings this song, again, the context of which I don't understand- lyrics here:

When the war was over, why, there were jobs galore For the G.I. Josephs who were in the war But for generals things were not so grand And it's not so hard to understand What can you do with a general When he stops being a general? Oh, what can you do with a general who retires? Who's got a job for a general When he stops being a general? They all get a job but a general no one hires They fill his chest with medals while he's across the foam And they spread the crimson carpet when he comes marching home The next day someone hollers when he comes into view "Here comes the general" and they all say "General who?" They're delighted that he came But they can't recall his name Nobody thinks of assigning him When they stop wining and dining him It seems this country never has enjoyed So many one and two and three and four star generals Unemployed

-Irving Berlin

Were there a large issue of unemployable Generals post WWII? Why would this be? Were they considered overqualified? Why would a private have a much easier time getting a job or receiving accolades?

Thank you in advance for any insight you can provide.

Regarding the second question, I'm a history major at UCLA, and ever since last year, when I learned a bit about the Spanish Civil War era in a class for my Spanish minor, I've been thinking of going to grad school to research that topic. However, our department is light on professors of Spanish history, and I don't think we have any in that particular field (so I haven't taken any classes on 20th century Spain). A professor I spoke with recently (who studies a different area of history) advised me to apply to grad school in a field I have the most experience with - which right now, seems to be early modern Spain and Latin America, counting the classes I've taken for my major (and will take) as well as certain literature courses for my minor. Is this good advice? Do you professional historians on this subreddit have anything to add?

I have heard that the post-war writing was mostly done by the Germans. However one of the books I read about Kursk claims that the histography of the battle was favouring the Soviets and based on the official Soviet version. Is this the case?

(The book in question is the Swedish Slaget of Kursk by Anders Frankson and Niklas Zetterling)

How was the general view of the Eastern Front? In neutral countries/not ones directly involved in the conflict? In the other Allied nations? How has it changed?

​

(Apologies for bad English)

[deleted]

I am talking about the period after the fall of France and before Pearl Harbor and the start of Operation Barbarossa. I do realize that Germany had little chance of invading the UK in short term, but it seems like the UK also had no chance of retaking the continent.

Bonus question: given how dire the situation seemed, did the UK ever consider a peace agreement?

This seems impossible today, how was it possible then?

...According to Aodh de Blácam in "Secrets of Propaganda" (1937) "Whoever or whatever supplies the flow of news to English-using newspapers, it must be a small group. ..It is obvious too that this control of news is not done by minds akin to ours...Therefore we depend on our international news from a small, anonymous group resident we know not where. We live under as strictly controlled news as residents of Communist Russia. The only difference between us and the Russians is the Russians know Stalin controls the news...but we muddle along under a dictatorship we cannot identify. We call ourselves free because we cannot see our master."

Is this accurate in 1937?

For my history project I am planning on doing Boudicca. could anyone tell me some useful information about her or good places for sources. I want to know for sure what if fact or fiction. I believe 2000 years ago a lot could have been fabricated about her

I'm going to try to build a trebuchet, but I don't know the correct materials to make it.

I want to read material from a Roman's POV and not from a contemporary's POV. I know of Tacitus' "Germania" and Caesars' "Bellum Gallicum" and thats pretty much it. Is there any other reading material anybody recommends? I figure if I should ask, this would most definitely be the place so thank you in advance.

On my term test, I put something along the lines of “To reduce stress from work and conflicts around the government,” and received 0/2 marks on that question.

Exam is coming up, would love to hear an answer as my teacher really doesn’t like answering questions for some reason.

The Native americans population strongly decreased with the arrival of the Europeans. I would like to know If the disease were the main factors or If the europeans settlers were the main cause.

Additional questions:

Were the death caused by the europeans deliberate (as a genocide) or by negligence ?

Is there an important difference between North and South America ?

What were laws like regarding cannons during the Age of Sail, especially for non-military ships? Could a merchant captain just sail into port and buy a couple? Or would he have to apply for permits (something like how gun licenses work today)? Could a British captain buy cannons from say, a French port?

I understand its a broad period of time (1571–1862), so I guess anything within that time period is fine.

I'm trying to track the role of the Emperor and allegiance to the Imperial family over Japan's period of modernisation. I understand that one of the ideals of Meiji revolutionaries was to reinstate the Emperor (and they stormed his palace to demand his support?) - but where does this desire come from and what did they think this would result in?

Without mistaking the Mongol Empire as having been the contemporary Tatars, Mughals, or Qing Dynasty

The Russian Empire was very vast with many small populations hundreds of kilometres away from each-other. It seems inconceivable to me that most even really understood the nuances of their current events.

When I say "Russian", I of course don't just mean ethnic Russians but also the many different ethnicities within thw Russian Empire.

In the movie Lincoln, towards the end of the civil war when readmission of the Southern states into the Union is being discussion, the following conversation occurs:

           LINCOLN
       We ain't here to discuss
       reconstruction, we have no legal
       basis for that discussion. But I
       don't want to deal falsely. The
       Northern states'll ratify, most of
       `em. As I figure, it remains for
       two of the Southern states to do
       the same, even after all are
       readmitted. And I been working on
       that.
                     
                      ALEXANDER STEPHENS
       Tennessee and Louisiana.
                     
                      LINCOLN
       Arkansas too, most likely. It'll be
       ratified. Slavery, sir, it's done.

What was behind the assumption that Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas being likely to ratify the amendment? I don't remember learning anything about this.

I've read that there were mounted infantry popular in the 17th-19th centuries. Where they used horses for mobility but dismounted and fought on foot. Did their horses just hang out while the fighting occurred?