I was watching a documentary called world War 2 in color on metflix. In episode 13, it tells how US strategic bombing with high explosive bombs was unsuccessful because the bombs missed. This was because the bombers had to fly high since Japan was out of range of fighter escorts. Just after this, it says that US strategic firebombing with fire bombs from low altitude was devastating, albeit with high US bomber casualties. Since this shows that they could stomach the loss, why not just use high explosives, or use incindieary at high altitude (since fire spreads)?

Vietnam experienced a lot of turmoil from the start of the First Indochina War to the end of their border conflicts with China. Many examples of PTSD from American troops who went from relative peace in the US to fighting in Vietnam, but did the Vietnamese experience similar psychological trauma, or did the fact that the Vietnamese have a tumultuous mid-late 20th century make them "used to it"?

Or is great Roman Republic and subsequent empire all helmed by one city?

[deleted]

1 - Why are they called Nazis instead of National Socialists?

2 - Who coined the term Nazi?

[deleted]

The usual running joke is that the English and French were always at war throughout history, but today the thought is unthinkable really. They went from staunch adversaries at Waterloo to Triple Entente allies in roughly 100 years. So, what changed? Was is the scale of the World Wars that forced them to be allies against a greater threat? Was it the end of the Napoleonic era that allowed for closer relationships? How did France and the United Kingdom (mainly England) become friends?

Sweden and Finland are hockey superpowers; Norway, not so much. Hockey is a big deal in Latvia but not Estonia or Lithuania; in Belarus but not Ukraine; in the Czech Republic but not Poland.

Then there's Germany and Switzerland, which have well-attended professional hockey leagues but usually aren't contenders at the Olympics or other international competitions. (Germany's surprising silver medal in this year's Winter Olympics notwithstanding.)

Why did the sport catch on in some countries, but not their neighbours?

We usually see Jesters juggling or telling jokes to Kings but was this actually the case? What would it take to be a jester? What was a normal day like for them?

Preface this by saying I'm mostly thinking about England and (northern?) France in the early-mid fourteenth centuries, but any medieval place and period is welcome!

So with modern states, we're accustomed to thinking of them in terms of borders and area -a state rules the territory within these defined bounds on the landscape, where it has a monopoly on force. We don't think of space between states, and we identify the highest level of government with the country itself, and associate with it supreme power. Even when the subdivisions of a modern state have significant autonomy, we tend to think of them as purely domestic actors, without any external voice or power.

I have a feeling this model is highly inappropriate for the middle ages, but I want to make sure how I am conceptualizing it isn't totally groundless. Rather than defined territorial kingdoms, it's more appropriate to think of (sacral) kingship, which function as centers to which lords and princes -cumulatively much more powerful than any king- in the spaces between the centers of royal prestige and power can attach and detach themselves, based on constant negotiation, renegotiation, and force. Even when nominally subordinate to a royal center, these lordships and principalities would retain independent prerogatives for external matters.

This is sort of an ideal-type conception, and I don't mean it to sound too systematic and defined, but am I thinking about this right?

Because definitions are hard. I have heard some people characterize the Russian Revolution as a coup (the argument often goes something like, well the Bolsheviks took power, no one wanted that, and they ran things pretty much the same as the Tsar; often there is the implication that the Provisional Government was actually revolutionary). By contrast, others seem to argue that the Bolshevik Revolution had mass support, particularly from their base (the working class), and that it lead to fundamental changes in society.

I am obviously not sure if either of those is a good definition of a coup or a revolution and so would be interested in hearing people argue against those definitions as well.

Nakajimas were used by IJA. Mitsubishi were used by IJN. How different were they: Armaments, Speed and Maneuverability, their ability to fight against their adversaries and such.

At the risk of getting political, I absolutely cannot imagine, say, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton getting minted on highly-circulated coinage (and not just commemorative editions) without an absolute tidal wave of controversy. Doing my own quick reading appears to reveal controversies (in the case of the dime) relating to communist conspiracy in the initialing on the dime, as well as controversy over the potential plagiarism of the FDR bust featured, but nothing specifically about the depiction of FDR himself. I'm especially intrigued by this because FDR had just come off an unprecedented four-term presidency which must have come with controversies of its own.

Were these presidents just so overwhelmingly popular that they warranted so fast a mint? Or does this suggest something not about the Presidents themselves, but about the American political climate of the 20th-21st century? Is it a special case because they had died prior to the minting, no matter how soon after the mint came?

What controversy existed about these depictions just a year after these Presidents were gone, and can any meaningful historical insights be gleaned from that controversy, or lack thereof?

So I have been studying Peacebuilding at University this term and just wrote a large dissertation about powersharing agreements in post-conflict deeply divided societies using Northern Ireland, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Lebanon as case studies. Throughout my research, I never found many references to any attempt to investigate into the conduct of Republican or Unionist paramilitaries, the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the British Army.

I find it hard to believe that there were no crimes whatsoever as some quick research implies that there were a number of cases of summary executions, covert assistance to paramilitary groups, and improper interrogation techniques (code for British torture of IRA members).

As an England-born student, our contact with Irish history is very limited and the only way I was able to get into depth was through my A2 History class on Irish nationalism which stopped around 1921 with the Anglo-Irish Treaty. I would be extremely grateful if someone can shine some light on why this hasn't happened. In addition, I am really interested in getting to grips with this period of British and Irish history so any good sources or recommended books on IRA/The Troubles from a socio-historical or military historical perspective is greatly appreciated!

What is the social context in which the proposal of and later ratification of the 22nd amendment happened? Was this a "political class" response to the populist fervor for FDR after having won 4 elections? Is it related to the mounting Red Scare? What were the conditions under which the government, or people in it, felt that we needed to consider limiting presidential terms?

My first impression, just looking through pictures of sailing ships, is that there were perhaps little, eh, "latrines" inside larger ships during the Exploration Age where a crewman could relieve himself. But looking at images of biremes and triremes, I get the feeling that Greek and Roman seafarers simply went over the side.

Are there any flaired users with knowledge of this mundane aspect of early seafaring life?

I am wondering how much letters of indulgence particulary leading up to the reformation were. I think i read somewhere that their cost was based on the individual's wealth, but I'm wondering if there was at any point in time such a thing as a price list for different sins.

To give context: I am teaching students at a high school level and was specifically looking for sources on this, because I imagine they would ask about it in class.

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case which asks if there are limits as to whom a sitting president can hire & fire. Although seemingly a minor judgment, there are obvious large questions about Executive limits and general checks and balances.