I am always surprised about the Cambridge Five and the theft of nuclear secrets from the U.S. by the Soviets. They created their union in 1922 but had infiltrated the West enough to plant operatives at the highest levels, in numerous countries, all in about 25 years.

Did it have something to do with ideology? The doctrine of socialism may have attracted many people to spying for the USSR.

[deleted]

I'm currently writing a short essay on GoT S06E09, "The Battle of the Bastards", and one part of it focuses on the mounds of dead bodies that form. Now, I have medieval sources on Dupplin Moor and Agincourt, as well as Keegan and Roger's opinions on Agincourt, but apparently the mounds were based on accounts from the American Civil War, not from medieval accounts.

To date, the only example of something like this happening is a the "Bloody Angle", where there were so many casualties from the assaults that they filled up the trenches in front so that you could simply walk across them.

Are there any experts here who know of other examples of this happening?

How far back did the English have an accurate understanding of the history of their own people? Did they know their ancestors came from what is now called "Denmark"? Did they understand that the stone age gave way to the bronze age and so on? Did they understand how their political structures came to be? How much did understanding vary among the classes and across nations? When did accurate historical knowledge turn into religious myth for 10^th through 14^th century English people? How much did historical accuracy change over the centuries?

Did peasants ever really uproot, live in the forest and waylay people? I really mean more like an occupation rather than soldiers deserting or ravaging.

Also, is it true globally even now?

I'm currently reading Andrew Robert's biography, Napoleon: A Life. I've found the book to be very fascinating and one continuing thought I'm having about Napoleon and his life is the level of influence he had on European history. I know this might get into Great Man theory vs the Marxist theory of history (which admittedly I don't know too much of). In other words, if Napoleon had not existed, can one assume that the political, social, and cultural climate of the French Revolution and Coalition Wars would simple have produced another French dictator who may have done many of the same things Napoleon had done? Or is Napoleon individually unique to an extent that history would have turned out very differently had he not been born? I guess this question might draw into larger ideas about whether history is "progressed" or influenced mainly by broader social, political, and cultural forces or are they the result of unique individual actions and choices. It seems to me that in a time of monarchs and dictators who wielded much more power than leaders do today history was more influenced by individuals, rather than today when societies are generally more democratic and many more people and consequently the broad societal forces that impact them influence history more so than they had before. Is there a consensus or favored viewpoint that historians have today on the impact of individual qualities, choices, and actions have on history vs societal and cultural forces?

[deleted]

I was wondering about Slavery under the British Empire. I know that the slave trade was banned in 1807 and that the institution of slavery was abolished in 1833 in the empire(with a few exceptions). My question is what was slavery like in the British Empire? Was it more relegated to the colonies like India and their African colonies? Were there slaves in England itself? Was it a similar race based system like it was here in the States? Or perhaps it also included criminals? any insight would be much appreciated.

I was watching a program about the Battle of the Bulge, and it mentioned that German soldiers caught wearing American uniforms were summarily executed as spies. Was this a war crime? If not, why not? Assuming some of these German soldiers were conscripted, and all of them were under orders to don American uniforms and infiltrate the American lines, why would they be executed?

Dear Friends,

Hello. I just finished Prof. Hew Strachan's The First World. I intend to read more books on the said topic, written in an engaging way and especially shedding new light on the origins of the war, international relations, alliances, etc. Prefer recent publications.

Thanks a lot.

Or are recessions a product of recent changes to how economies work? But, If they did have them, did people know that they did?

In the "Battle of Bastards" episode (s06e10), "Lord Ramsay Bolton" combines longbow men with a phalanx, the latter employed to envelop a weakened enemy infantry in a semi-circle at the end of the battle. Are there any historical precedent for the use of both tactics in the middle ages?

Just a showerthought I had, wondered if there was any clear answer to it. Because I'd imagine that it was frowned upon in medieval times and such, and in the 70s it was normal and cool, but I struggle to think at what point in this large timeframe the attitudes towards it (and towards public displays of affection in general) changed.

I remember the scandals with masturbation and cigarettes, but other than that, I remember the Surgeon General being a very common site in interviews and PSAs as a general spokesperson about health matters in the US.

Our current Surgeon General is Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, who has an excellent set of credentials, but no one knows who he is. If I remember correctly, the last Surgeon General in the public eye was during the Clinton administration.

What happened to this role?

EDIT: secondary question - was there any official word or some statement made by an administration or was the role just pushed out of the limelight?

I'm reading the Wiki page on the Rommel Myth, and I'm seeing how Rommel was a central hero in German war propaganda, and was even practically celebrated by the Anglo-American press. Why, then, was Rommel not sent to command against Germany's most dangerous enemy in the Soviet Union, which had been gaining considerable ground even before Rommel was implicated in the plot to kill Hitler?

Was the value of his mythology too great to risk tarnishing on the Eastern Front, where the fight was far more difficult?

Before anything: I posted this in /r/anthropology and it got removed so I'm posting this here.

As far as I know they didn't wear pants in the colonial era as every one of them wore skirts in which they could fit 2-3 times but I once saw an adventurer woman with pants (also in the colonial era but it was in a video game).

The atomic bombs took much longer to build than anticipated, to the point where they almost weren't ready in time to be used in the war. Were there any discussions at the time about what to do with them if Japan surrendered before they were finished?