[deleted]

I always here that fascism is an idealogy of the right, but then i read;

"'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'" (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

I'm aware of such practices in 18th and 19th century armies, though usually it would have been NCO's wives, but naval vessels would seem to be an entirely different scenario. A quick google search suggests it was against policy but overlooked, but provides no real examples other than vague references.

[deleted]

I live in the United States. Lately I've been thinking about this. We shelter our children from knowledge of sex (movie ratings, the stereotypical "babies come from storks" explanation, etc.) But the more I think about it, the less probable it seems to me that this was always the case.

Was there ever a time when children were generally not sheltered from such knowledge? And if so, how and why did that change? Where did this ethical standard come from?

I'm fascinated with Napoleon and would love to know more about the Napoleonic wars, is there any good podcast that cover this period of French history?

Do we know (like from Roman texts) what Celtic and Germanic peoples wore as clothing? Is there any archaeological evidence for it?

I've read that about 15,000 German soldiers were executed for desertion during the war. If that's true, how many successfully deserted and where did they go?

It's just west of what was Neustria, wasn't it? It's part of France today... so I don't understand why.

Long question in title. Hopefully covered everything. :V

When you visit France you can tour various royal homes, like the Palace of Versailles and they seem pretty intact. Were the homes of royalty and the rich not destroyed or looted during the revolution?

What other events might they be referring to that might be considered worse?

So I'm translating a book by a Brazilian geopolitical scholar who's quite boldly claiming Wall Street staged a falled coup against FDR in the wake of his new deal policies.

He says the plot was thwarted by General Gerard C. Macguire Smedley D. Butler and subsequently investigated by the congressional McCormack-Dickstein Committee. But no arrests were made.

According to the author I'm translating this is because "there was a cover up to safeguard the image of the United States as a democracy, its myth of 'exceptionality', the country where no coup had ever taken place."

I had heard of this before, but thought it was mostly hearsay.

Anyway, can any reddit historian weigh in on the matter.

I understand the native Americans used tobacco smoking for ritualistic purposes but it seemed to have taken root everywhere it's brought as a recreational drug. Based on my experience with cigarettes, it's a pretty unpleasant initial experience for most people. Why did it spread so easily and widely (all around the world)? Was earlier tobacco more potent? Was it the result of some sort of marketing strategy? Or did people use it because they saw it as an exotic foreign good?

After all, Charlemagne fought against the Moors, the Saxons, the Lombards, the Croats and many others. So why didn't Charlemagne simply annex Brittany and Venice which by comparison seems like easy prey? If i was Charlemagne, i would've taken Venice on my return trip back to Francia proper after being crowned Emperor by the Pope.