Here are a few passages from the book (“The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lew Kuan Yew”) relevant to the question:

“…I believed then that the discipline of the students and the energy and dedication of their leaders were natural and spontaneous, born of youthful enthusiasm and idealism. It took me two years from 1954 to 1956 to fathom their methods, to get glimpses of their intrigues and deviousness and to understand the dynamics of the communist united front (CUF). Behind the scenes, the anonymous Town Committee of the MCP controlled and ran open front operators like Robert Soon Loh Boon and those section leaders at mass rallies. The communists had a secret network of disciplined cadres grouped in cells of about four, each with a leader who gave the orders (dressed up as the outcome of democratic discussion), who in turn took orders from a leader in another cell of a higher rank. These orders were disobeyed at the risk of isolation and marginalisation for those on the fringes, of rustication and punishment for those who were members of the Anti-British League or the MCP, and of death by assassination if a party member had committed an act of betrayal. It was a ruthless system in which a past record of sacrifice could count for nothing, and therefore not one to be defied lightly…” (113)

“…But at that time I, too, got carried away by the wave of sympathy for them, and on 20 September, the Nanyang Siang Pau quoted me as saying, ‘Until now the authorities have no evidence of any communist activity in the Chinese schools; but they regard opposition to the government’s refusal to allow the students postponement of service as communist activity, and under this pretext, they seek to exercise better control over the Chinese schools.’ I was ignorant, gullible and stupid. I did not know just how efficient the communists were, how their tentacles reached out and controlled every single organisation that was bubbling up against the government.” (114)

“The biggest single theme that galvanised the Chinese-speaking was Chinese culture, and the need to preserve Chinese traditions through the Chinese schools. It was not a proletarian issue; it was plain, simple chauvinism. But the communists knew it was a crowd-winner that pulled at Chinese heartstrings, and they worked on it assiduously.” (122)

“Goode now explained that the Emergency Regulations were necessary because murder, arson, acid-throwing and other crimes of violence were part of the communists’ bid for power. They had to maintain their acts of terrorism not just against the military, but also against civilians in order to cow them into a conspiracy of silence. The result was that no one who valued his life would appear in court as a witness to any communist-related crime.” (128-129)

So after watching the trailer of the new Battlefield 1 expansion (the world's most accurate WWI simulator /s), I saw a lot of comments despising the inclusion of minorities in the trailer, but this motivated me to look up the actual demographic numbers. However, a quick Google search yielded nothing.

What were the demographics (race is what I'm mostly after, but other criteria too) of the armies in World War I, and where can I find this kind of information for other periods of time? Why were some of a certain population more likely to be part of the war?

Maybe I was too hasty in my search but I'd appreciate some info on this. Thanks :D

Do they show it wrong in movies, when they carry pistols on the belts muzzle facing down? Or was there some mechanism that prevent bullet falling out, that had to be disengaged before firing?

I've been reading up on Rome from the start of the empire to the Severan dynasty, and it's surprising to me that the empire had so much trouble keeping a dynastic family on the line. As far as I know, there wasn't a biological dynasty that lasted longer than three members; while the Antonine dynasty went through 6 members, all heirs were adopted, not biological.

So why did Rome have so much trouble? China had no issue keeping dynasties for several hundred years before and during Rome's time. After the empire fell, its successor countries like France and Austria also maintained long lasting dynasties. What was the difference?

So what did the general public think of Donald Trump before 1997 (20 year rule) as he had yet to enter politics? Was he very well liked, controversial or just a figure no-one had an opinion on at the time?

Also, do we know what some of his famous detractors today, like Meryl Streep, Robert Di Nero, Michael Moore, the Clintons, Obama, etc thought of him at this time?

Thanks

I know from school they taught us that the modern day Democrats and Republicans used to have essentially swapped political stances. What I'd like to know is how such a radical change could occur and why? Also a timeframe for this would be awesome, if I'm correct the switch occurred sometime after the civil war though I'm not sure when.

Also would I know the serve pain Could be life threatening? I guess what I'm really saying is, about how many people would've died from burst appendix before people realized what was wrong?

I listened to a History of English podcast, and it was said that Indo-Europeans commonly had "stock phrases" in epic poetic traditions? Is there a comprehensive list of such stock phrases, in & beyond Indo-European epic poetry?

So... can someone shed some light on the differences and similarities between geographical or environmental determinism vs. say, historical determinism. I would greatly appreciate it.

I was discussing this with a friend the other day, and he claimed that Truman's true intent was not saving American lives because the Japanese were already planning to surrender to the Soviets. Instead, the bomb was a first act of the cold war, i.e. to prevent the Soviets from making a foray into the Asian theater.

I was stopped in my tracks because I really don't know enough about it, but I found the claim suspiscious as the Soviets didn't really have an Asian front to speak of.

So is there any historical evidence to support these claims: that Japan was planning to surrender to the Soviets and that Truman put a stop to it by levelling Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[deleted]

I was telling some friends that I'd been enjoying reading it, and they said they really wouldn't take it seriously as a historical source, citing the likelihood of Caesar sensationalizing his own successes and being generally inaccurate given his active role in the events and consequently his inability to be objective.

Is there a consensus opinion on its historicity and value as a primary source?

I'm curious at how the historians on this sub deal with this subject. I know there is a word for viewing historical events through a contemporary lens and making false judgments, but I can't remember what it's called.

My interest stemmed from a conversation with someone who was absolutely fixated on the racist cartoons that Dr. Seuss had made around the 50's, and was arguing that it functionally disqualifies him as someone that we can trot out and celebrate in any way.

I have heard people do similar things with former presidents (Jefferson had slaves!) and I wanted to know how to properly respond to this line of reasoning.

It strikes me as understandable but misguided, however I don't have the proper terms and base to refute it competently.

What do all you of say when someone wants to discount a historical figure just because they had views or actions that were historically commonplace or banal but would be heinous today?

I've always been interested in how deadly each 'branch' of the various armed forces were. For example, would a tank crewman be more likely to be killed than a rifleman? Were pilots more likely to be killed than submariners? Etc.

As I sit at home and look out at Route 30 - the Lincoln Highway - I sympathize with Eisenhower's misery in using it to cross the nation in 1919. And I realize that a national highway system for defense was in the nation's mind for sometime...but what specific threats were Eisenhower taking into account when he started work on the system again? It doesn't seem to be designed with Russia in mind.

If you haven't heard of the play Hamilton, welcome from outside your rock :P. In the plan, the second act is largely based around Hamilton trying to get his plan to assume state debts through. I was wondering how important this plan really was. Thanks :)