In my history class on the Vietnam War I learned that when Vietnam declared itself a free country its declaration of independence was modeled after the US' and had a very western, enlightenment ideology. It wasn't trying to be communist initially. It literally says that France/Japan "hampered the prospering of [Vietnam's] national bourgeoisie" but communism doesn't want a prospering bourgeoise, they blame it for exploiting the proletariate. So Vietnam wanted to be like America, not China or the USSR. Also, if the US was so against communisms spread, wouldn't helping Vietnam achieve independence and creating a democracy stop them from becoming communist?

But instead, the US chose to help the French continue to repress a colony for its resources without giving it any power JUST like Britain did to the US. My only guess is the US saw itself so powerful and strong that it didn't care about Vietnam and chose to side with its ally instead of its principles.

What do you think?

I moved to indiana and this year it got really cold for a couple weeks. Negative temps in the middle of the day. It is cold out even with snow socks, and modern insulated jackets + thermals.

How did people survive before the invention of insulation for housing and central heating? I know that they had fires in log cabins and small brick houses, but you wouldn't think just a fire and some fur hide would keep you warm all the time. Especially considering log cabins aren't air tight, and that you couldn't bring a fire next to you all day as you had to do your job.

For background, the 1969 test was intended to test a potential commercial application for nuclear weapons, as it was thought the explosion could aid natural gas extraction.

Just found it odd that not even a full year after a revolution, my ancestor's entire family moved to the states. Parents and children just got up and left, which seems odd as I can find no reason for them to move here as they had no family in the United States. Basically, what could make a French family in 1849 pack up and move to a nation where they knew no one. And from what I've gathered they were not poor either, which further confuses me as to why they left. Political upheaval?

If it helps to narrow it at all, they seem to have come from Western France, kind of near present day Switzerland and Germany.

[deleted]

I have read about the Battle of Cynoscephalae, Pydna, Magnesia between Rome and Macedonia. Most of the time Roman army triumphed over Macedonia thanks to the flexibility, like in Pydna they made a (feigned?) retreat and use the advantage of terrain to break the phalanx formation, although they couldn't penetrate the pike wall.

I imagine i'm a legionnaire, facing a phalanx formation with my friends, side by side. I see there must be some ways to push through the pike wall:

1. I'm sure there will be some gap between pike tips. I will put my shield between the small gap, use my strength to rotate it, widen the gap and the maniple will form a single-man line to push forward. If i manage to reach the enemy information where my short sword is clearly having advantage over long pike, the wall will be broken.

2. If maybe there is no gap between pike heads, soldiers from the last lines of my maniple just need to break ranks, charge and flank the phalanx, while the first line use big shield to hold the enemy.

3. Every soldiers just throw 2 pila, there would be some serious damage to the enemy, may break their information. Or just making enemy's shields become useless, good prey for missile units.

So why it didn't happen like what i just imagine? Roman legions from what i read on Wiki can't hack down pike tips, being pushed back with high casualties and have to use terrain to turn the table? I'm looking forward to you guys answers and explanation. Thank guys.

P/s: sorry for any typo and bad grammar.

So I'm looking into airships for a project I'm doing and I'd be interested in knowing why airships went out of style, outside of the obvious issues with high production cost and vulnerability once incendiary bullets were invented. Was a there a single factor which, if it had been different, would have protected the future of zepellins and kept them in the air? Is there a factor which could have made them viable on the battlefield?

Thankful for all contributions.

I've known decent levels of reading on the Eastern Front, but one thing I don't understand is what precisely the German military/Hitler failed to take into account when deciding to invade the USSR. I assume it was many thing, but I can't rightly determine which ones. I've read he was in disbelief about the Soviet Union's production capacity, especially while they were under attack, did he not anticipate them moving industry to the Caucasus? Did he think that the Soviets were too entrenched in their political system that they wouldn't replace the incompetent generals with better ones? Did he underestimate Soviet morale? Did he have a false perception about the raw quantity of manpower the USSR could field? It seemed to me like his idea that the USSR would collapse within 6 weeks of fighting was rooted largely in prejudice about the Soviets, perhaps supported by the purge and the bungling of the Winter War. So as a result, did he not take into account the ability of the Soviet Union in terms of production, manpower, or other factors?

I know the Russians liberated a lot of the concentration camps, but as country with extensive camps itself, how did it teach its citizens about the Holocaust? Did they distort it? Did they downplay the fact that the victims were mostly Jews and other groups they also persecuted?

During the Cold War, most of the Soviet Unions aircraft carriers were either helicopter carriers or aircraft carrier missile-cruisers.

Why wasn’t there much of a concern compared to the US,UK, and France that invested heavily in aircraft carriers that could perform strike missions with fighters and bombers.

Was the Soviet Union more focused on its land doctrine?

In 'The Idiot', Dostoyevsky describes the main protagonist, prince Myshkin:

his eyes were large and blue, and had an intent look about them, yet that heavy expression which some people affirm to be a peculiarity. as well as evidence, of an epileptic subject.

However, this does not square with modern medicine, which rejects the notion that epilepsy can be traced in a person's looks, so I wonder if Dostoyevsky had something entirely different in mind?

I (think I) know that Epilepsy was considered a 'sacred disease' in antiquity and this seem to agree with the rest of Dostoyevsky's portrayal of Myshkin (especially given Myshkin's life-saving seizure when he is put under great stress by being threatened), but I doubt that medical science in Imperial Russia hadn't already given up any such notions of the disease?

i know that they had to do a lot of calculations in order to predict planes movements, including things like temperature, wind speed, flight time, enemy movements. and i also know that radar was used for these calculations (at least i think I'm know...).

But how did they get these coordinates? were they calculated by a central hub and then passed out to various flak gun crews by radio? or were they calculated on the spot by the flak gun crews? was some other method used?

the reason i ask is because I'm creating a 3D environment of a flak gun emplacement, and i need some other props to populate the scene. I'm assuming they would have a table nearby the gun maybe with a radio in order to either receive their orders or something similar, so any help would as to what they would have with them in the trench would be appreciated.

Sorry if this question has ever been asked before.

With today's talks of "Fake News", investigative journalism, and clickbaiting, I heard today's current news situation is similar to that of the yellow journalism Era of the 1880s-1900s. So I'm curious, how valid is the comparison?

Specifically, what was journalism like during that time? How wide spread was low quality journalism? And how did US society move past it?

Was a Knighthood only for Christians? I've never heard of any pagan knights or Muslim knights?

It's common knowledge now that Thomas Jefferson had children with his slave Sally Hemings. It's often said that he started his relationship with her due to her close resemblance to his late wife, who was her half-sister. Was she the only slave with whom he had sexual relations, or was she simply a "special case" due to the circumstances of their relationship?