I've seen on the Wikipedia page for the Amu Darya stating that water was used from the river to flood a city in Khwarezm and that Genghis Khan destroyed a dam on the river. I was just wondering if there were any primary sources associated with this.

Considering they fought with the Axis, and all other Axis allies in Europe were turned into Soviet puppet states, how did a country which borders the USSR avoid a similar situation?

"Firewater" seems to be one of the biggest blights of historical Native Americans, introduced by European settlers, yet ancient civilizations knew the process of fermenting, how did pre-American cultures not?

At Rourke's drift the Zulu's were underarmed compared to the British, so in that case and in other lopsided battles like it, where firepower sits on one side and manpower on the other, the wildly disproportionate casualties make sense. But at Jadotville the Katangese had mortars, and machine guns, and modern rifles, and an airplane. How could they possibly not have overrun the Irish quickly and decisively.

title pretty much speaks it all.

Why are the Spanish and Italians not speaking descendants of Gothic?

Just looking at old photos, everyone seems so stiff and almost afraid

Hello Historians.

I'm currently a Junior History Major at a great university, and am looking into doing an independent study course in the Spring. The two professors I plan to study under only somewhat fit the criteria of my research, so I was hoping one/some of you might have the knowledge to fill in the gaps!

I am planning to look into the transition from Japanese occupation to American occupation in the Pacific in the 1940's, as well as the process of America returning autonomy to these nations (and attempting to keep US hegemony in the process) over the following decade or so after initial occupation.

I know this is a broad subject and I may need to narrow it down a bit, and I think obtaining texts to read from experts would help narrow that focus down. Anything is welcome from Indonesia, to the Philippines, to Indo-China, to Korea.

I understand the rules state that we can't ask for help with homework, so I hope this doesn't fall under that branch. I am just looking for historical texts, whether primary or secondary sources. You're welcome to add in your thoughts on the subject too, as I love hearing from other minds on the subject, but ultimately my goal here is to obtain the tools to enrich my understanding through my own study.

Thank you so much in advance!

I grew up in Bangladesh where in school history classes or outside, we've been taught about British India with the an overlying theme that the British colonialism was unambiguously a bad thing and we're all very glad that it's over. I would assume that any country that was once a British colony takes a similar view.

But recently I've been wondering how do the British view their own colonial past? How is this topic taught in British schools? Do you also think that British colonialism was a bad idea, something to be ashamed of? Do think that British rule wasn't that bad and the very negative view of it is a bit unfair? Do you wish that things had gone over a bit better and you still had an overseas empire?

I recently took a tour of Grant's Tomb in NYC. The guide, an NPS ranger, remarked that historians hadn't been kind to Grant's presidency, well into this century -- one indicator being that his tomb focuses almost exclusively on his Civil War service and virtually zero on his two terms as president.

The ranger said Grant deserved better, and hopefully our ideas of him would be improved because the next biography of him was being written by Ron Chernow, author of "Alexander Hamilton." My group nodded their heads and agreed that was "good news" for Grant's memory.

But then I thought...why? I would assume most modern historians would take a sympathetic view of Grant, due to his work against racism, for conservation, etc. Everyone has access to Grant's autobiography and the papers published after his death. Why is Chernow's involvement "good"? Because Chernow is a "good" historian? How so? No one would question the good he did in restoring Hamilton among the Founders...but is that to his credit, or Hamilton's? Or Lin-Manuel Miranda's?

I have nothing against Chernow or Grant (or Hamilton). I just wonder what Chernow's new status means for his works, how we view his works, and our placement of history in context. What if his biography declares Grant was a despicable tyrant? Should we believe him because he was right about Hamilton?

In terms of technology etc.

Or did the idea of gold having some sort of intrinsic value originate somewhere and spread to other areas of the world?

I was wondering if any of you knew of any good primary sources on the subject.

There were a lot of slavery issues then... what states could have slaves, when could slaves be freed, etc. But what else was going on? What were the gay marriage and Obamacare-esque kinds of political stances of the time?

I am aware that a number of French embassies cooperated with the new Vichy government but what about the countries like Denmark that were occupied but still retained their own governments for a few years? Did they become bases for governments-in-exile, accept the Axis Powers, or just shutdown?

Edit: There has been a great response for the Danes, but anyone else who has information of other embassies for other occupied countries would also be welcome. Thanks!

I have heard about the theory of that GDL is actually Belarusian also called "Litvinism" lots of times. I think it is weird,makes as much sense as Finns claiming the Swedish Empire was actually founded by Finns (ofc theres no such theory), nationalistic and i know its not true,but where is the supposed evidence for this theory which says that GDL is actually a Belarusian state....