I always thought that Custer was extremely controversial, but when I read his page on wikipedia, he seems like he was a fairly succesful general, who made a tactical mistake. Nothing there seems to be dramatic enough to earn that bad of a reputation. What I am missing?

Main question in the title. Some additional questions:

How in touch were they about news and politics around the country and world?

Was it a job that attracted many immigrants?

How was the pay, and what was the average amount of hours worked daily/weekly?

What were their encounters with Native Americans like, if there were encounters at all?

I know P-51's from Iwo could reach Japan and shot down many planes covering the B-29s. The zero would have had one hell of a time reaching that altitude. But the Ki-84 and N1K would have had much less of a problem. Did the Japanese air force have the strength to repel any bombers at that point? Also I know they had 2 B-29s flying with them equipped with sensors and equipment to figure out the power and destruction of the bomb, did they have turrets at all?

I've heard this a few times and never thought much of it. But now I'm curious, because it certainly sounds like it could be a myth, and when I looked into a bit, it seems there aren't much in the way of real sources besides unsubstantiated account of Tom Standage.

Do we know if Coke really secretly made White Coke for the Soviets, or is it a myth?

The Trinity test was conducted in July 1945, but when did scientists first realize the potential to create a weapon 1000s of times more powerful than any other? Was the suggestion taken seriously at first?

Why only people with land/farms could join the army before the Marian reforms? It would make sense to recruit people without land, they would not have as many commitments while on campaign and it increases the drafting pool of the army.

My Granddad turns 90 on August 8th, and with the 70th anniversaries of landmark World War 2 events around the same time (Hiroshima, Aug 6th; Japanese surrender, Aug 14th; VJ Day, Aug 15th) I think it’s an important time to tell his incredible accounts of these historic events, before it’s too late.

As a 16 year old, he enlisted and later became a Royal Marine Commando. After manning a landing craft during D-Day, he travelled around the world to fight the Japanese. It is here he experienced first-hand the Japanese surrender, the devastated, molten city of Hiroshima just a few weeks following the explosion, and the aftermath of the Japanese rule of China.

One of his tales involves a bizarre encounter with three Japanese soldiers shortly after the Japanese formally surrendered. In search of bananas, he embarked by himself down a jungle pathway, when suddenly the armed soldiers appeared. Just as my Grandad believed he was doomed, they stopped, stood to attention and saluted him.

Of course, my Grandad can tell these stories much better than me!

For the past few weeks I have been emailing journalists and historians, with the hope that someone will be interested and willing to interview my Grandad and record his experiences. However, although I have received responses, those that I have contacted have been unable or unwilling to help.

If anyone can help in any way to get his experiences recorded (and even published through a media outlet), I would be thrilled. I’m sure my Grandad would be too. He survived the war (unlike many of his friends and family), worked for most of his adult life at an oil refinery whilst bringing up eight children, and cared for my Grandma during her 10 year battle with Alzheimer’s, but the one consistency throughout these decades is his wartime memories and desire to share them.

My Grandad lives alone, can barely walk and rarely leaves his house. As you can imagine, such a life can make him feel forgotten, and forgotten is something he definitely should not be. The one thing worthy I can think of to do for him for his birthday, is make sure his stories get the audience they deserve.

As I understand it, the Hundred Year's War started back in the 1300s when Edward III of England claimed the French crown by right of inheritance from his mother Isabella, while the French insisted that the royal succession cannot pass through a female.

In the Wars of the Roses, it seems like we have a similar situation: The Lancasterians were descended from a younger son of Edward III, and the Yorkists were descended from an older son, but the Lancasterians said that their claim was better because it was a direct male descent.

If, then, the Lancasterians were committed to the principle of male descent when it comes to England, why did they continue to claim the French crown based on female descent? Were they simply hypocrites? Or did they have some clever explanation?

Hi there, I recently attended a brief presentation about the Battle of Mobile Bay (there is a cannon firing every day at the Grand Hotel in Point Clear, Alabama).

The presenter suggested that the cannon available to the Confederacy + mines effectively made it very difficult for Union ships to attack Mobile. I took his comments to mean that, at significant distance from the city, any ship traveling to the city would necessarily come within the range of cannon fire.

However, after looking at the size of the bay and doing some very preliminary research about the range of Confederate cannon, this might not be possible. At its widest, the bay is 24 miles wide. At best, CivilWarArtillery.com suggests a 10,000 yard range (and those cannon might not have been available to the Confederacy).

So, what gives? Did they mine the center of the bay, forcing ships to travel near the shore? thanks!

While the Soviet Union crumpled before the internet and PC were truly household items, a lot of corporation and government institutions in the west were using computers by the late 70s/80s.

How was the situation in the Soviet Union, were they lacking behind?

Basically the title. I've seen historical materialism often criticized as being too deterministic. Sometimes these criticisms seem at first glance to confuse materialism and economism, but I'm not quite sure. So obviously very few people in academia nowadays write with a strictly Marxian framework, but surely there are places where his materialism is still relevant, right?

How significant are these, and do you think that they still allow for any predictive capacity (i.e., capitalism will lead to a revolution to either communism or barbarism)?

In your opinion which British destroyer class was the most capable or "best" overall in terms of armament, speed, etc. How are they compared against a Fletcher class destroyer?

Also, how many officers were usually onboard a British WW2 destroyer?

I've been doing some general reading about the European front, and I find it interesting how despite being the leaders in aviation technology, Germany did not have that much of an advantage over the Allies. Is it because of how they used their air force, or are there deeper reasons?

Although we know of the bloody conflict between the sunni and shia, which is fought even today, I know little of the relationship of the Ibadis with the 2 other sects.

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I wasn't sure where to turn. I live in Texas, and I know of a movie theater in the downtown of a very small town, north of the Dallas area, that is over 100 years old. Unfortunately, there's not enough business to keep it open daily, year-round. I am worried that eventually development will swallow up the historical downtown, and the beautiful building will be demolished. I was hoping to figure out how I could get it nominated for a historical marker, and perhaps save part of this community's history.

I recently heard a guest speaker from the Foreign Policy Initiative on a conservative political commentator's radio show. The man claimed that the U.S. was in a great position to win the Vietnam War, but the liberal arm of the Democratic party did something to screw the military. I was wondering how most historians view this claim.