[deleted]

Hello, I'm looking for modern sources on Stalin and the Soviet Union. I know there was supposedly new archive information released a few years back, and that new books have supposedly been written.

The more unbiased the better, i.e., hopefully neither by direct anti-communists nor by people with a strong interest in making Stalin look good.

One source I've found is Robert Conquest's The Great Terror: A Reassessment, but it's from the 90s.

A person on my Facebook has asserted that "We have interstates because Ike sold them as back up runways in case an enemy destroyed military bases."

I've heard that we designed the Interstate system to have enough straightaways that military aircraft could land on them, but I had always thought that that was mostly urban legend (emergency landings need a lot more than a straightaway, they need the right direction, enough clearance, etc.). His statement got me to thinking that I don't know the full story, so I thought I would ask. What was the intent behind the interstate system? Was it designed with military needs in mind? Was that the primary focus?

1780-1870, and especially the 1780-1830, still seems very agrarian.

Edit:I meant modern steam engine, not petroleum

We know Neolithic Europeans, as well as Mayan and Pacific Islanders practiced Cannibalism. Were those practices gone by the time writing and "civilization" was developed in Ancient peoples?

When Islam first came around it spread amazingly quickly, at least in the sense that a lot of territory came under caliphate control very quickly. Was this purely through military might or was it not uncommon to see people newly brought under the caliphates convert without a fight?

[deleted]

I often think that people take this quote out of context. So I am interested in knowing the actual history.

Hey /r/AskHistorians. I apologise if this is covered in the FAQ, I spent a while searching and came up with a few similar but not as specific questions.

Many modern media pieces depict any pre-WWII army as a collection of regular soldiers led by a noble, royal, or just better figure than the soldiers themselves. The Sharpe series for instance begins by showing how difficult it is for a common soldier to command with the same authority as a gentleman and this theme continues throughout every movie/book. The quote in the title was shown on a Total War loading screen, I have been unable to verify it specifically but Onosander was a Greek philosopher who wrote about the duties of generals and such.

First, did this superstition exist as the media portrays?

If so, where, when and how did it arise? How did it then fall and when exactly did it fall? I feel like it was some time between WWI and WWII, so I'm looking for an answer that can pinpoint an event rather than a time period.

How far did the belief that the aristocracy was "better stock" than the common man extend beyond the military and how did this affect human development? (This one is very broad and open ended and possibly against the rules, so please feel free to ignore it.)

I mean, they were marching through Georgia down the heart of the deep south, I kind of doubt that supply trains would be able to just follow them in. And if they did, would they be moving fast enough to catch up with the troops at a consistent rate? Because Sherman's march lasted a few months if I remember correctly, do I doubt they could have carried all of their provisions with them for that amount of time, like ammo and rations. Or was stealing food and other supplies from southern cities and towns part of the whole total war kind of scheme they had going on? How did they do it? I'm just curious

I understand that they had the technology to cross somewhat long stretches of open water, but what were their motivations for doing so and how could they confidently embark without the fear that they would be lost in open ocean or sail endlessly before running out of food/water?

Whenever I read about King Louis XIV, there is always a passage about how, in order to control his nobles, he created Versailles where they could be controlled in his court. I've never read anything that really goes in to great detail of how this actually would have worked. To me it always comes across as:

1. Build huge golden palace
2. ????
3. Nobles no longer a problem....Also, profit.

What is step two here?

Hello! I'm a junior in high school and facinated with pretty much all areas of history, but I'm most interested in American Revolution/Early Republic era. I really want to study history in college, but I just don't know what I want to do after that. How many jobs are actually in the history field? Would it be smarter to have a political science major and a history minor? Thanks for all the help!:)

The more specific question could've been "why were Warner Brothers' 'Censored Eleven' made and why did white people find them funny?" but I wanted the question to apply to all racist media at the time. What did white people in the United States find so funny about making fun of black people? It's often said today that most (emphasis on most) successful comedy usually comes from a place of hitting "upward" instead of "downward". So what did people at the time find funny about ridiculing a persecuted minority in American society?