I mean it seems like they had enough of it to go around. At least enough for all the fashion, drugs, concerts, and gas for road trips. Oh, and sometimes rent, too. I've always heard the narrative that it wasn't until the mid-70s that the leaders of the counterculture finally punched in every day but is that really true? They had to have some way of making cash in the meantime.

[deleted]

I understand the basic notion of the answer to this question, but my girlfriend does not, and she has posed it many times. I find it difficult to explain to her. Particularly regarding Native Americans, she asked why if some civilizations like that of Europe can progress in the manner they did, why were other civilizations like Native American tribes living the way they were? She couldn't understand why they weren't in the same spot, relatively speaking, that Europeans were. Help a guy out here in educating himself as well as his curious girlfriend.

I get the need to disarm after the war, but dropping tanks and millions of rounds of ammunition into the sea just seems inordinately wasteful, especially regarding the eventual cold war arms race. Would it have been so hard to just store them away?

I recently had a discussion with someone about the Western front in World War 2. My argument is that towards the end of the war, all the Allies could do was push forward. Going around the German line was not a viable option as demonstrated by the failure of Operation Market garden. At this point, numbers served their purpose. Although the Allies would look to minimize causalities there was no major strategic breakthrough. I used the Hochwald Gap and the advance of the 2nd Canadian Army to demonstrate the use of the vast amount of resources and manpower to hand rather then strategy. Although smaller actions would have been taken during the fighting to lessen the blow from the German defense, in the grand scheme of things. This was not a master stroke. My question to anyone who will answer it is this; is it fair to make the suggestion that in mainland France through to Germany, there was no breakthrough strategies developed by the Allies?

Thank you in advance :)

I was reading about how Augustus surrounded himself with people who were favourable for him in the senate and it got me thinking. Was there a typical pathway to becoming a senator in the Roman Empire? If there was, did it change to suit the needs of emperors?

[deleted]

Germany had so many successes prior to their invasion of the Soviet Union but I've read that so many mistakes were made after they tried to invade.

Germans could actually see Moscow (from what I've read)...why not take the city? Wouldn't it have been demoralizing to the enemy to take the capital?

With the institution of marriage being primarily a religious rite, and with Marx' rejection of organized religion, how did the soviet authorities go about handling it?

My understanding is that it was to do with control over Korea and Manchuria.

I have a couple of questions:

1. What were the causes of the war?
2. What was the strategic/economic importance of these regions? Was it to do with natural resources in these regions or something else?
3. Why did Russia fare so poorly in the war?
4. What were the long-term impacts/consequences of the war, if any? Did Japan become considerably more powerful? Did it have long-term effects on the economies of the 2 countries?

I really don't know how to ask this question shortly, but the barrel (cask) is a really complex shape and it requires work and precision. Why this and not something more intuitive?

The pope is still Pontifex Maximus so the legacy of the roman empire still exists in real form. I also studied latin for 3 years and can speak it for no practical reason. I also in some abstract sense would say I am roman because they created the society we live in. Am I an idiot or all we still Romans?(those in western European culture)

Even the questions, and so many silly anecdotes. This is a subreddit I used to cherish and now it's like /r/askreddit. Something needs to be done.