Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States agreed with the UK in the ABC-1 Conference and the ARCADIA Conference that Germany was the more dangerous foe. However, did the United States actually pursue a Europe First strategy like it said it would? What was the decision-making process like? How can we measure whether or not it did? Also, was it true that Germany was the more dangerous foe, or did the British just manage to convince Roosevelt of that?

I've been intrigued with this story for a while now, if only because of its Indiana Jones-esque air of mystery. The legend has many different variations but, essentially, it states that after Genghis Khan died, his body was buried in a tomb with all of the riches of his plunders (treasures that were from the far corners of Europe and Asia and worth an unimaginable sum of money) and the slaves that buried him were killed by soldiers and those soldiers were in turn killed when they returned to the cities--in order to keep the location of his tomb a secret. How likely is this story to be true? If untrue, why haven't archaeologists been able to find Khan's tomb?

Also, do we know what such a tomb would look like based on, say, the tombs constructed for his ancestors/descendants? Was it common for rulers to be buried with their riches in 13th century Mongolia?

I've heard the idea that during WWI Germany was basically "Shackled to a corpse" in the form of it's allies. How much of that was true, and how much German propoganda? Had WWI somehow occured with the same forces arrayed against just Germany, could they have done any better?

Like long range escorts or intercepers

I've been watching a lot of the "Exodus" movies (Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014), The Ten Commandments (1956), etc.) Is there any single film which accurately depicts the Egypt of Exodus? If so, which one? I'm not so concerned about the historicity of Exodus itself, rather the portrayals of Egyptian culture and society of the purported time frame of the Exodus.

Did the French use any other name for the Channel?

I'm just curious if this ever happened, and what the results were.

I remember reading a long time ago, as part of a general argument against arms races as a cause of WWI, that the German army before the war was actually quite below its potential. Specifically that:

• Compared to France, Germany was military spending was lower in terms of % of GDP, and in addition to the difference in conscription length of 2 vs 3 years after 1913, that Germany also called up annually a lower proportion of its male population.
• The German naval buildup had become so expensive that it was starting to seriously constrain army spending.

I'm hoping people can comment on this in general. I would also hope in specifics if somebody can provide say from 1900-1914, numbers on Germany vs France's spending, conscription call up, and the changing percentage of German spending on naval vs army matters.

Why Scotland doesn't have its "IRA"? Or does it? I read only about very passive Scottish National Liberation Army.

This might be a little to current but I'll give it a go.

What types of similarities and differences are there between the Russian oligarchs post-USSR and the current Ukrainian oligarchs? I understand there are oligarchs in Ukraine who run entire cities, did that occur in Russia? Is the timeline of Russian oligarchs losing their political power going to be similar for Ukrainians (Ukrainian oligarchs don't have a power-consolidating Putin to worry about)? Has there ever been such prominence of oligarchs in power?

I don't know much about him but he seems like a really interesting character.

Also, can someone explain how they managed to keep their language alive, but not spread past their corner of Spain/France?

dfghjk

I'm not Slavic myself, and haven't even lived in Europe, so I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out a particular Slavic folk song (most likely a winter festival carol).

I can't see any forums specific to this on reddit or elsewhere, but I thought maybe some history experts might know what direction to point me in for people with familiarity with certain historical music.

Kurtz uses this example to show that the Vietnamese were so dedicated to their cause that they would mutilate children. Did violence at this scale ever happen? And was is used to prove an example to the Americans? Also, what was the extent of violence between the Viet Cong and the NVA against Vietnamese civilians?

I've had a history teacher who said they ran and hugged because the long war was over, but have heard stories online about they kept fighting despite peace. Which is it? Or is there a bit of both?

My history teacher began lecturing on WWII this week and began to mention events that led to USA to partake in the war. Of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor was intolerable and forced the USA to join the war. If the attack on Pearl Harbor had not happened, would the USA keep to its, presumed, isolationist ways or would they have joined to war either way?

I was reading Tolkien's translation of Beowulf, and I came across the line,

To him was an heir afterwards born, a young child in his courts whom God sent for the comfort of the people...

which seemed a bit jarring use of terminology to me. Enough at least to get me to set the book down and ask in this subreddit.

I'm pretty sure other translated texts of older stories (pre-Christian) follow suite (I don't have any examples on hand to quote), which always strikes me as odd. Capital-case God is used for the Christian god Yahweh/Jehovah today. Why isn't lower-case god used for these translations, or the name of the pagan deities these stories would be referencing?

I'm reading these stories and I'm wondering by pagan Geats, Greeks, and Romans are invoking the Judeo-Christian God.

This question is for anyone who has applied for the National Museum of American History internship for this coming summer. Have you heard anything? Anyone who has applied previously, were you notified if you weren't chosen.