Following WWII, I understand that the USSR and the Western powers agreed to withdraw from Austria in 1955 on the condition that it remain neutral. However, I'm having trouble understanding the Soviet motivation for agreeing to this. The West agreed because they thought that Austria would align itself economically and politically with the West, if not militarily, which it indeed did. Why did the USSR agree? Couldn't they have seen this too? Why didn't they set up a puppet state in their occupation zone?

I'm doing research in multifuel engines used extensively by the US Army in Vietnam. The engines are a Diesel (compression-ignition) concept that is designed to be very robust in order to burn a multitude of fuels including Diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, gasoline, burner oil, etc.

The engines were manufactured beginning in the 1950s through the 1970s by White, Hercules, and Continental (American farm tractor and aircraft engine builders). However, I've heard the U.S. did not originally develop the hypercycle combustion technology, but instead it was captured from the Nazis at the end of WWII. I've also heard the research was developed by what is today known as MAN Diesel in Germany.

This appears to be common knowledge among the military vehicle collector community, but I cannot find a source to back it. Is there any known source that can prove or disprove this myth?

Hello, my wife will be doing an activity with her high school students next week involving Jack London's The Call of the Wild. One element of this activity involves packing an imaginary dog sled. She has had a terrible time finding a clear list of the sort of items that a dog sled would typically contain (a long distance, 1 man prospecting sled like the ones mentioned in the novel). She was also wondering what the average weight of such a sled would be and, if possible, what the weight of each item would be.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can answer any of these questions!

On a trip to Mexico, I was told by two different tour guides at Mayan ruin sites that the Western world greatly misunderstands Mayan human sacrifice. One guide denied any evidence of human sacrifice among the ancient Mayans, explaining the artistic depictions as symbolic. The other guide acknowledged that it may have happened, but added that it would have been considered an honor for one to give their life in such a manner. For example, he claimed that the winner of the notorious ball game, not the loser, would have likely been the sacrificial victim.

From the perspective of a non-historian, this is confusing. Given how little we know about the ancient Maya, I wonder if anyone here can shed some light on objective evidence we have for Mayan human sacrifice?

Who were the people? What were the most significant settlements? Etc etc.

I did a unit on slavery way back in school (Georgia, USA, 1990s), and we were taught different ways which slaves resisted their masters. One of the highlighted resistance methods was "playing dumb", messing up small tasks, and generally pretending to not being competent workers. The logic was that outright defiance was dangerous, so it's better to be artificially slow if you want to resist. The slave masters assumed the slaves were inferior to whites, so the slaves ended up playing the slave masters' own prejudices against them.

I recently started reading Uncle Tom's Cabin, and slaves "playing dumb" is a recurring theme. In one case, two slaves are told to help a slave trader track a runaway - an act contrary to the slaves' goals. The slaves go to great lengths to tell the slave trader a truth, that a short-cut road is fenced in, while making it appear to the slave trader that they are lying. The slave trader believes the slaves are poor liars and travels down the closed road, wasting hours of travel time. When the slave trader confronts the slaves with their deception, the slaves reply that they told the slave trader the truth and he chose not to follow their sound advice.

Are there documented cases of slaves systematically slowing down or playing dumb to outwit their slave masters, or is this behavior more folk wisdom? What do we know about this kind of behavior?

It seems that people are firmly in one camp or another. I've been trying to find answers, but am a bit lost. Hoping for some help!

For instance, when Carthage was converted into a large parking lot (!), how did the Romans get rid of the buildings there in a safe yet timely manner? I am interested in the Roman's demolition methods because, as conquerors, I figured they would often be left with the task of demolishing buildings that they did not construct- and that might not of always been easy.

I've also had American friends tell me that when you get to the Deep South, everything is just referred to as "Coke".

Sorry if this is more suited to /r/etymology.

Media has shown that ancient currency was often coin but even valuables could be used as currency, such as a silver goblet being a 'piece of silver'.

Is this an accurate representation and if so what happens to said items? Do they get melted down and repurposed as coins? Or could these items have still been used as currency itself?

Slavery had obviously figured into history before that point, so how did schools dance around the politics?

When I was in high school (small town rural America) one of my history teachers gave us the pertinent facts about Franz Ferdinand's assassination that differ in some pretty important ways from what I've heard from other sources namely Dan Carlin on Hardcore History.

My teacher's version:

• There were multiple assassins along the parade route

• Franz was shielded from the first assassin's bullet by his very overweight wife.

• When the driver of the wagon realized there was an assassination attempt in progress he supposedly panicked and continued on the parade route path at an increased speed instead of veering off course. This allowed the subsequent assassins to take their shots. We were told the driver was held in high suspicion due to this.

• Franz and his wife were killed on the parade route by the subsequent assassins.

I'm about halfway through Hardcore History's Blueprint for Armageddon and Carlin outlined a different set of circumstances in the first episode of the series:

• The Archduke and wife were traveling in an automobile (not wagon)

• The first assassin threw the equivalent of a hand grenade at the car injuring many but leaving Franz and wife intact.

• After the initial attack the driver did not continue on the parade route but went to the local magistrates office on Franz's orders.

• The subsequent assassins on the route packed it up and (at least in Princip's case) went out for lunch.

• Franz and wife were shot and killed later in the day by Princip after he finished his sandwich.

So is there some legitimate disagreement about what happened? Was my HS history teacher way off base? Or maybe Dan Carlin is?

Edited for formatting

I find the idea of unlucky "egyptian days" mentioned again and again in relation to the julian calendar, but without much detail, beyond the fact that they're Bad, as if whatever they are is common knowledge and not worth explaining.

I'll be hauling my lazy behind over to the library to look their entry up in the annoyingly undigitized third volume of "Kulturhistorisk Leksikon for Nordisk Middelalder..." but thought maybe someone in here could help fill this embarrassing void for me. I originally ran into them while reading about Scandinavian runic clog calendars, but they seem to be an integral part of the julian system?

Hi all!

I have a brief understanding that meatpacking jobs during this time period were pretty unsafe and unsanitary, but that's about it. So I'm hoping someone can give me an in-depth look at just how terrible these jobs were, like how little the pay was, what exactly made them terrible jobs, etc. I know that in 1906, Roosevelt made the food safety laws, so I'm looking for the conditions before that happened, so say conditions from around 1886-1905.

Thanks!

[deleted]