It's something everyone knows, that the sweaty, pale, nervous Nixon lost the debate to the handsome, young, confident Kennedy. It's said that those listening on radio said Nixon won, but TV watchers, of which there were 74 million, said that Kennedy won.

But how do we know that the debates affected how people voted in November? It makes sense that it would, but I can't find polling data or even anecdotal evidence from people telling about how the debate changed their opinions of the candidates.

Are there any factors that led nazis to go there ?

Is it just because the Europeans won and the Nazis lost? Did the 100s of years gap between the two change narratives?

It's a little confusing that the European settlement of the Americas is celebrated in textbooks whereas Nazi Germanys campaign is universally reviled

For example, would the Soviet era Russian or Asian textbooks have treated the European invasion of the Americas the same way as they treated Nazi Germany?

I was listening to some Sherlock Holmes stories last night, and it occurred to me that Holmes and Watson never once call each other by their first (Christian) names, despite the length (depth?) of their friendship. I know that men usually called their male friends and associates by their surnames (the only exception in Victorian literature that I can think of off the top of my head is Pip and Herbert in Great Expectations, when the two characters specifically give each other permission to use Christian names), and that the custom dates to well before Victorian times; but when did it die out? After WWI, when so many other social customs changed? As a side note, in all of the modern "re-interpretations" of the Sherlock Holmes characters/series, the characters refer to each other as John and Sherlock (with the notable exception of The Abominable Bride, when the writers preserved historical accuracy in that regard).

Now I understand that even today kitchen knife may be a leading cause of violent death. I'm talking about armies thinking in terms of weapons. Obviously even modern armies equip soldiers with knives and bayonets (fun fact: my Soviet-ish textbook on civil defense had pictures of SVD sniper rifle with bayonet which is hilarious) but nobody expects soldiers to use those in combat. Except perhaps some special operations units.

Anyway, I would think that when armies stopped using armor they stopped caring about melee attacks. But even in the Napoleonic Wars there were chargers and attacking with swords. And AFAIK no one used swords in WW2. So at what point proper professional armies stopped caring about melee combat?

The way I understand it is that Christianity became a huge religion because it was dominant in Europe and it was dominant in Europe because after the fall of the Western Roman empire, barbarian tribes would adopt Christianity. But from what I know Christianity at that time wasn't a very powerful or major force.. Bearing that in mind I thought that it is quite weird for strong barbarian tribes (like the Huns and Vandals) to become commited to this religion. I asked my history teacher about this and he told me that the Christian church was very well organized (having systemized ranks and hierarchy, like Bishops, the Pope, etc.) and that there was a basis of Christianity followers which made it easy for tribes to rule over a larger population. Are these the main reasons or is there anything more?

I know there won't be a definitive answer because breasts are not considered taboo in all cultures, but is there a point in history where maybe a pattern emerged amongst developed countries to start covering breasts?

Seems as though penis and vagina are almost always covered no matter the culture, but there are a lot of tribes that just view breasts as a food source for children and have no taboo attached.

Edit: thank you for all of the great responses!

[deleted]

Shouldn't MPs have known any better? Was it just a zeitgeist?

I'm 300 pages in to the book right now and the detail is certainly impressive, but I've noticed Mr. Shrirer tends to add his personal opinions into the mix often. As a first hand witness to the events detailed, can we be confident that Mr. Shrirer's accounts are accurate?

[deleted]

So, I've become aware that, to a degree, Spain isn't actually a unified nation the way we might think of France or Germany. Instead, they are several autonomous bodies who agree to act as a single state (this is most likely a gross oversimplification for the sake of clarifying my question). Historically, the Iberian Peninsula was even home to several independent kingdoms (Asturia, Gallecia, Aragon, etc.).

In the mid-19th century, what I would call mid-stride for Imperialist Spain, did those regional identifiers exist the way they do now/did previously? Would an Imperial Spanish citizen consider themselves Gallecian, Aragonese, Castillian, Leonese, etc., or would they simply be Spanish?

Bonus questions:

• How did the Saracens in Sicily mount a defense against Guiscard's invasion? Was there much of a professional Muslim armed force there?

• Were there any substantial links (diplomatic, trade, military) between the Italo-Norman states and Normandy itself, in the decades that followed?

I've looked in the frequently asked questions and most deal with marajuana. I'm genuinely curious why some of the other drugs such as LSD, cocaine, and all the rest became illegal.

I am referring to both their culture and their ancestry. To be neutral, I'll ask the same of Israelis in another post.

Lots of claims fly around about them being descendent from very recent migrations from surrounding regions, or thousands of years ago in the Arab Islamic conquest, or that they're the same people that have always been there since pre-history, they simply assimilated into a new culture. What do you historians say about the claims, I want to sources and data. Please and thank you.

Edit: I am specifically referring to the demographic and population history of the southern Levant, particularly the group of people who identify as Palestinian and/or Arab. I wish to avoid the politics concerning names and territorial claims.

I was reading about Boethius' De Consolatione Philosophieae, which was an influential work in the middle ages. Are there other works from classic writers (Cato and Tacitus, perhaps?) or "contemporary" medieval writers that would have been must-read for a (secular) medieval man?

From what I understand, the Middle East used to be lush and green, but after thousands of years of human habitation, and destructive farming practices, eventually desertified and became the giant desert we see today.

When did this happen? How green was it? What plants and animals went extinct? Give me everything.

I'm doing some reading about propaganda practices in Maoist China, and I'm looking to find personal accounts from citizens/dissidents who were incarcerated by the CCP to undergo thought reform.

Looking at different regions across Medieval Europe, there appears to be some areas with little to no evidence on clothing. However, I'm getting the impression that many items of clothing were pretty much the same across Europe, similar to say jeans and T-shirts today. Is there any truth to this?

Would pirates have had intel on where to intercept shipments or did they simply sail around looting random ships?

Bonus question: Were these pirates usually taking gold, silver, etc.? Would they ever loot, say, shipments of tea or other inventory?