Dien Bien Phu was obviously a very important battle for the French, or else their entire government wouldn't have resigned upon it's loss. Why did they decide not to march 50,000+ troops to the northwest? Assuredly, even in the rough terrain surrounding Dien Bien Phu, a modern force in 1954 could've found some way to get there in a timely manner. Heck, 50,000 Viet Minh made it there on foot!

I know that, originally, the plan was to resupply by air, but after only a couple days of fighting they realized that that was nearly impossible (and that they were losing badly). Actually, instead of marching the Legion over there, why not just airdrop fresh troops outside of enemy AA gun range (even if the next closest safe landing was, say, a province away)?

I apologize if this is the wrong place, I did not know where else to go.

I am in a senior level International Studies class on Genocide and the culminating project is a 4800 word research paper about a mass killing in the 20th century. The topic must advance an original argument and cannot simply describe an act of genocide or summarize someone else’s argument.

I was thinking about doing either the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or the Japanese treatment of the Chinese in World War II. The problem is I am having a hard time narrowing down a new topic that has not been studied exhaustively and is not too broad. I have been to office hours, but I still cannot think of one.

Some ideas I've had are:

The opposite ideas of modern technology and weapons being used to push the Cambodian people back into an archaic agrarian society (not enough information, too specific?).

Why the Japanese were so brutal to Chinese civilians at Nanking after a decisive military victory (too broad, already researched?).

Japanese ownership and remembrance of Nanking (too broad?).

Any ideas or feedback would be appreciated as I am spitballing for ideas.

Self-Explanatory Title ^

Would be appreciated if someone were to give me an incredibly detailed and comprehensive list of 'em all, and no this is not school related in any way, I'm just curious since schooling systems really like to emphasize only on the atrocities the Nazis had committed upon the German people, and not the other way around.

I am incredibly curious about the construction of America's highway system, but apparently nobody else on the entire internet is. Any article I find just says "they signed a bill which allocated money. Then they built roads." I would like to know any possible detail about the process of the highway system's development. I have a ton of questions and anything would be appreciated.

How much did the process cost? Where did we get all the asphalt for it, domestically or otherwise? How many workers were employed by the project? How long did it take? How much ground could a crew pave in a day considering modern construction of roads literally takes years? Did they start in the east and work their way west or did they simultaneously start work in numerous major cities? What were problems that arose as the roads were made? What were the results of building the road, did road deaths go down? Did car sales go up because of better roads?

Thank you for any details you guys can tell me. I know not all of the above questions have good answers.

I was doing some cursory research on the Bronze Age, as it always interested me. Then I can across something that seemed almost apocalyptic, but was almost a footnote. Who were these sea people? Did they have a cultural name? What did they look like? Were they Greek esque, Italian, Egyptian, what? Where did they come from? How did they travel such a long way? How did they bring such a massive army that could overwhelm so many civilizations? And most importantly, why do we know absolutely nothing about such a gigantic invasion of these people?

In the Netflix show “The Crown,” characters such as HM George VI, HM Elizabeth, their families and the Prime Minister often use the phrases “King of England” or “Queen of England” in casual conversation. Is that accurate, given the Act of Union (1707)? Is it reasonable to expect that these people would, in casual conversation, use that terminology rather than “King/Queen of the United Kingdom”?

Does the office of Queen of England even exist anymore?

Hello, I'm preparing research for economy strategy PC game and I would like to ask for some recommendations about mercantile systems/economy in the history of Europe (most interested in western/central Europe 17-18 century).

I'm most interested in corporate law at those times, taxes, etc.. and how companies worked. And if there is somebody who loves this part of history I would love some personal insights.

Closest to this topic what I read was Wealth of nations by Smith.. so if somebody can give me some recommendations I would be glad. I'm not afraid of books with academic tone to them.

Thanks!

If the tradeoff was being able to destroy most of the USA's pacific fleet, leading them to enter the war earlier, (or possibly at all) were the attacks worth it? If they hadn't attacked, I assume we would have eventually gone to war against Germany, but would we have fought Japan?

Has the religious perspective on this changed over time? Are different religions valuing life differently? Can we draw a causality relationship between the increase of the value of life and the technological developments? Did the popularization of democracy have a say in this or are there exceptions of countries with totalitarian regimes where life is valued just as much? I would be curious to hear about different takes on this subject.

Thanks

Hello!

First time posting on this subreddit, mainly because I need some help with school. Just a quick disclaimer that I am not a historian by any means, just a high school student, so if I say something dumb, well, you'll know why.

Anyways, my history project is basically me mapping out the changing views of colonialism, and how certain events have changed people's perspectives. I am splitting the changing views into three sections, as recommended by my teacher:

1. Age of Discovery
2. Late 18th-19th century (Abolitionist movement, Subaltern, etc)
3. 20th century to more modern viewpoints (Freedom of African countries, post WWII, etc)

I think finding views for the last two points will be easy, but I am struggling to find historical sources from the first point. My teacher recommended trying to find sources and accounts that sort of show how colonialism was beneficial to those who participated in it (British, Spanish, etc) from people during this time, and I have struggled to do so. I was thinking there may be some Christian missionary during that time that viewed colonialism (or whatever it is they called it during that time) as 'converting the savages to their noble religion' or something like that. Can anyone recommend me accounts from this time that speak of the benefits of colonialism? That would be a great help!

Also, it would be useful if you could also tell me how I can expand on the last two points and other things I might be able to talk about. Maybe some post-colonial sources and writers/historians? And where would post-Colonialism fall under, the second or third section?

Thanks a lot in advance!

I'm specifically envisioning ear infections that go on for weeks and weeks because there's no antibiotics.

I'm very unconvinced that even had the French force not been destroyed that they could have accomplished anything at all.

From what little I've read the French expected the PAVN to attack their position and defeat them in a defensive battle. However, if the French position was as strong as they thought it would be, wouldn't the Vietnamese have ignored it and attacked elsewhere? If the PAVN had attacked and failed it seems that they would be able to withdraw into the jungle.

Hello,

I'm currently enrolled in a North-American studies masters programme, I also follow extra classes about the Middle-East and the history of Islam.

My question to you is this: I have to choose a master thesis (I have plenty of time to do so) and I want to write on US foreign policy in the Middle-East. I have a few ideas: US-Saudi relations (which is a broad subject so I'll have to find something more precise. Another idea I have is the US relation towards Shia countries and its containment policy towards those countries. The two subjects are related.

I was wondering therefore, if this subreddit could be of any help in choosing a thesis subject related to those themes. I'm not asking for a specific answer, just some general advice or bibliography on the subject so that I can have a more clear view on what my thesis subject will be. The ideas I have now are way to vague and broad.

Thank you in advance for your help

Kind regards

Good morning everyone.

I've recently picked up the show The Tudors and one thing that surprised me was Henry VIII 's jousting armor. It seems like there is nothing to protect the neck or the forearms in there.

Considering the dangers of having wood splinters all over the place, would people really go to jousting matches with so little protection?

Many thanks in advance.

I know that we learned to translate ancient Egyptian mostly from artifacts like the Rosetta stone. But that was translating written text. Do we know what ancient egyptian sounded like as well? If we do, how did we figure that out?

Disclaimer: My question is based entirely on those scenes from the old Brendan Fraiser Mummy movies where Johnathan is reading spells from the Book of Life and can't figure out how to pronounce the Stork Hieroglyphic. So my question could be completely wrong.

Back before the days of Christ (and some days after), the world was majorly polytheistic. However, in nary a millennium, Christianity and Islam had become the dominant religions of all of Europe and West/Central Asia. I have a few questions regarding this:

• The highlight question, of course, is why did this happen? What is the current historical opinion as to why this might have happened?
• How did the people undergoing conversion in those times adapt to it?
• Is there any thought about why monotheistic creeds outside the Abrahamic ones (if any) died out?
• Why were China, Japan and (to some extent) India spared the inevitable conversion which characterised Europe and the Middle East?

I heard somewhere that after Dunkirk, a good portion of the British public didn't care much for the Nazi's over the British channel and some even despised the fact that Churchill was pushing the RAF to attack German infrastructure with the desire for peace. However, this changed after the Luftwaffe (possibly) accidentally bombed London and caused the public backlash against the nazi party leading to the bombing of German civilians and kick-starting the battle of Britain from a civilian standpoint and the consistent bombings.

However, I am skeptical of this as many British were fighting against the Germans and even gave their lives during Dunkirk.

Is it normal? Did it fade away? Is it a misprint? Is it a fake? (Pic in the comments)