I recently had dinner with my dad and a couple of his friends. We somehow made it on to the topic of vietnam, and one of my father's friends said "The reason we lost that war was because they simply would not let us win".

His logic was that the USA would not allow US troops to advance into north vietnam out of fear the soviet union would see this act as unacceptable and would declare war on the US.

I find this incredibly hard to believe for 2 reasons. 1: America advanced into north korea, despite the fact that korea it was of strategic importance to the soviets, and the fact that korea actually borders the soviet union. So why would it stop the US now?

2: The soviet union really did not care about vietnam. They saw no real strategic importance of the nation, which is why they sent very limited support to the north vietnamese.

So, this leads me to the question, what was the main reason the USA could not achieve victory over north vietnam?

During the time in which "dunking" was considered a test/penalty for witchcraft, why was is exceptional for someone not to sink in water? People in this time grew up around lakes and rivers and seas, why couldn't they swim?

Why were so many people willing to die over ending slavery when up until recently it was commonly accepted as a normal practice? This doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not saying ending slavery isn't something worth dying over, I just can't imagine all these people back then risking their lives for people they once cared nothing about.

I really don't know much about the civil war other than that is was fought over slavery.

Ok reddit, So i'm taking a course on Naval History since 1650. I've been struggling for the past three weeks to come up with a hella interesting topic. Ideally I'd like to write it on something to do with how naval warfar/ tech advances affected marine sea life during the second world war OR about the effectiveness of Operation Wonderland during the second world war.

Jw if you guys could shoot me some sources that may be beneficial to these topics/ maybe give me a super cool idea I could mold into something else

thanks guize

What political fall out was there? Were other nations worried at all about the outcome?

Yeah, a friend on facebook said (most probably completely misleadingly) that the use of the term "trap" in the sense that has grown in the internet community, as a term referring to pre-op transgender women or transvestite men who looked like women/"passed".

The idea was that transvestites in France would seduce men, drug them, and then rape them, and hence would be seen as "traps". The night would obviously begin with the transvestite just seeming like a woman, and then I assume daterape would follow.

Anyway, I believe myself that he was completely lying about it in attempt to attack some people we both know (as they are transgender) and the discussion was already on the idea of "traps" in reference to anime characters who would pass as traps.

Thanks in advance for even reading this, if you're thinking "this sounds stupid", so am I but I would rather have evidence with which to deny his claims than simply outright deny them and be wrong, and I would still rather be proven wrong before having to make fool of myself if this story turns out to be true.

So, is there any evidence of this?

I would begin in Jacobin France, or some time in Revolutionary France, if I were looking into it so if you are an expert in those areas and have heard nothing of the sort then leaving a comment on how the society of these areas was whilst denying the claim would also be helpful!

Manors had very few people so there was no introduction of new DNA into the system so over the generations people would have gotten disorders which would decrease the functionality of the manor. So how did they survive?

Max Weber is most famous as the originator of the idea of the "Protestant Work Ethic" and the relationship between religion and industrialization in Western economic history. Needless to say his Wikipedia page has a section on "Criticism." What was the response to his work when it first came out, especially from Catholics? And what are some of the major stances on his work today?

As the debates over the EU rumble on here in the UK, I've heard this quoted a number of times. I don't know much late-Roman history (or any Roman history really), but it sounds like it might be a bit of an over-simplification...

I see that is in the recommended reading list for the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs. I'm interested in the account, as I'm sure it's very compelling as a primary source, but I'm also wondering if it, for instance, talks about Aztec religion, or missionary work from the Spanish to the Aztecs. Does Castillo's account include things like this, or will I be treated to mostly the things "before his eyes"?

If Castillo's book isn't the best or most compelling on the subject - what is? Thanks, friendos.

On my AP US exam this year there was a political cartoon from the Revolutionary period. Instead of speech bubbles, there were "speech scrolls," sort of like what's under a European coat of arms. This got me thinking about the origin of the bubble shape, as it is now pretty much ubiquitous across all comics.

I often see this statement mentioned, usually in relation to how big of a deal the 1916 Rising was, and how major the British shelling of the city was. However, was Dublin truly considered a more important city than any on Great Britain itself (after London)? I've also noticed that it's usually Irish historians saying this, so I was wondering if it's an accurate statement. Thanks!

Were they arrested and detained, or were they free to go ? What would happen to you if your country suddenly ceased exsisting -in this case, Poland and France- ? Thanks for all the answers !

I often hear that the Greek/Romans were compelled to fight for honor and glory. Was this entirely for social purposes, i.e., to increase one's social standing and show other people how great you were, or was there a religious component to it as well? Did people in the ancient world believe their reward in the afterlife was based on how much honor/glory you achieved in this life? How did things change after the West became Christianized?

Before maps it must have been hard to get around. Also, please include unintentionally giving false directions, if it was penalized.

I was wondering if there was a cut off point? it seemed it would be the 1970s.

Also, did the black and white era have the "voice" where the voices of people have a certain bit of "static" to it? They all seem to have a bit of electronic altering to them.

Just like the Clean Wehrmacht myth, there is a prevalent idea floating around the web that the Panzers were far better than anything the Allies had and all that nonsense. However, unlike the Clean Wehrmacht myth, I do not know where this armor superiority myth has its origin. Why has it become so prevalent in modern media? When did it all start?

Here is the part I am referring to:

Mercury is the deity whom they chiefly worship, and on certain days they deem it right to sacrifice to him even with human victims. Hercules and Mars they appease with more lawful offerings. Some of the Suevi also sacrifice to Isis. Of the occasion and origin of this foreign rite I have discovered nothing, but that the image, which is fashioned like a light galley, indicates an imported worship. The Germans, however, do not consider it consistent with the grandeur of celestial beings to confine the gods within walls, or to liken them to the form of any human countenance. They consecrate woods and groves, and they apply the names of deities to the abstraction which they see only in spiritual worship.

I know that there is little information on the West Germanic pantheon, but any information on any of the referenced gods and to what Germanic pagan gods they are referring to would be great.