During ww1 & ww2

If the latter what for? How did taking colonies not go against communist doctrine

Edit: I should have written 'East Asian' in the title or tried to be more precise. To be fair, I am not 100% sure this trope even exists in fiction of most other East Asian countries. I came across it in Japanese manga/anime and in Korean manwha. I feel like I came across it in Chinese works, too, but can't seem to recall any examples.

I am confused about the reasons the Irish were targeted for discrimination. Of course all discrimination is bad, but at least based on race you can see something different.

I've noticed that in circles, and certainly the US military, the lamba and other Spartan symbols, icons and even the name itself is applied to military units, gear, brands, etc... They also seem to be popular in the "tough guy" crowd.

My question is, were the Spartans really that much better at warfare than the other Greek city states? I notice that Macedon has no similar following in America.

Also, I find it odd that the Athenians expected every citizen to take arms in war and fight, a democratic civic duty, something that is much closer to the US Military than the helot-lesiure warrior class mix in Sparta. Yet Sparta is the one revered.

I was always taught that the British and French were struggling for years trying to pry the German lines and then the US joined the war after multiple reasons such as

• sinking of the Lusitania
• Zimmerman telegram
• Wilson's overall liking toward Britain instead of Germany.

But here's my thinking on what actually happened.

• The British and French did most of the grunt work and then the US came in and easily defeated the Germans due to the costly work of the British and French.

• The British and French were desperate because they weren't able to find a clear victory and the US finally entered and broke the stalemate.

Which of the two scenarios fit the description? Was it a combination of both scenario? if so, to what extent? I'm really interested.

I know this is not the typical question for this sub but this is the place to get historians to answer questions about the job field. Hopefully this will not be deleted as I can not find this question in the search bar and I do believe this sub should have one question like this for future reference.

It's pretty simple,really. I just gotta know about them, and wikipedia doesn't have a lot to offer.

I think people tend to gloss over the transition from indentured Irish laborers to african slaves in the southern US and the Caribbean. Historians generally say that it is because africans were stronger and more able to do manual labor in the heat and sun. I think there may be some truth to that, but was that really the main reason? Irish were catholic, and England was flip flopping around in catholic vs protestant civil wars at about this time, could victimizing catholics have gone out of favor? And is this where our modern racism comes from, that somehow africans are stronger but dumber than europeans?

In some places in the world today, cousin marriages are common and even form a majority of marriages. I saw in an earlier post that sibling marriages were widely accepted in the ancient world. What happened to lead to the point that most western countries strike down even cousin marriage as illegitimate?

I need to write an article about the Peace of Westphalia and wanted some book recommendations. I want books that focus mostly on the issues and aspects discussed at the congresses of Munster and Onsabruck: the diplomatic formalities, territorial negotiations, the formation of the modern international system, the short-term effects, etc. In broad terms, a book about the inner negotiations that led to the Treaty. Which books do you recommend?

On wikipedia it says that the Mongolian People's Republic renamed the city Ulaanbaatar meaning "Red Hero" in 1924. All other post-communist countries seem to have renamed their explicitly communist cities and monuments. Why has the same not happened with Ulaanbaatar?

I have been making Mead for a while, and wanted to make something cool with ancient ingredients, but I have not found any actual ingredients that were used by Vikings listed by reputable sources. Any help is appreciated.

While reading an article they mentioned in it that Shia Islam has a negative view on islamic expansionism and does not approve of the Sunni Caliphates aggressive expansionism throughout history. Particularly the Abbassids.

Is there any truth in this? My own searches did not find anything. Historically, has sunni islam been more expansionistic than Shia islam? Was Shiites opposed to this? If Sunni islam has had a more expansionist focus, was this simply because it was more powerful and had opportunities that shiites simply couldn't match? Or was it because of ideological/societal differences, if so which?