I remember reading in a book (I believe cryptonomicon but don't quote me) that the navy had originally considered female only submarines, at they-

• are smaller and can get into tighter spaces,
• use less oxygen than men do,
• and are better suited to dealing with the social situation.

I don't know if any of this is actually true, so I was wondering if anyone had any sources that went one way or another on this.

Can anyone suggest sources to research this? Thank you!

I'm curious about the CCC and their role on the lives of the people in the Appalachian mountains like how the CCC and the government affected their families. Also, what kind of work was there for people living there in 1933 besides like lumbar camps?

How did the depression hurt the families and people living in those mountains too?

I was wondering if Japan began to slowly increase their product quality naturally through developing economies from outsourcing (more money means better goods), or if it was done on purpose, as in a national effort to produce higher quality goods.

from dime store toys and old Hyundai's Hondas to quality electronics and quality Hyundais and Hondas.

Also, would it be breaking the posting rules to bring up a modern example if I am not directly asking about it? (for the 20 year rule) (Either way, I will post it in the comments so that it can be deleted, leaving the post intact.)

Side question: what is the oldest coin ever found?

Seeing that the equipment and tactics had changed and armies had adapted to the new conditions of warfare, did they manage to make the manoeuvre warfare in the last stages of WW I more efficient/less deadly compared to the way it was conducted during the Marne battle ?

I'm having difficulty grasping the difference between the two. History is simply an interpreation correct? Isn't historical memory the same concept? Is one more politically driven than the other?

I need some explanation because I can't differentiate the two without overlapping meanings.

Obviously the Allied powers weren't pleased with Hitler annexing a non-German population for the first time. However the war wasn't declared until the invasion of Poland and from what I've read Chamberlain's response to the invasion of Bohemia was, despite public outrage, rather timid.

I know I may be going a bit too close to a what if question here, but based on what we know: Could Hitler have stopped at this point and get away with it or was the momentum of events in Europe too powerful to, realistically, put a stop to it?

I remember seeing something long ago that suggested a possible connection, something about the areas that experienced the greatest hysteria being ripe for ergot of rye?

Possibly a ridiculous question, but curiosity got the better of me.

Hi! My name is Jan, I am from Czech republic and I am now doing presentation on "economics of Holocaust". I was wondering, what were the costs of running the concentration camps. But to my surprise (well, not really) I couldn't find a single figure, except for trains (~250 million Reichsmark). Can somebody please tell me, what were the costs of concentration camps?

Also, I have another question(s) -

did the benefits from the Holocaust exceeded the costs?

Have the concentration camps paid themselves?

Did the Holocaust make economical profit from the point of view of Nazi Germany?

What were the costs of bureaucracy accompanied to transports?

Thanks in advance!

I know that this is a contentious subject, and I kind of need a primer. Some sources say that the Americans withdrew troops in 1973, but other sources say that the war ended in 1975 at the fall of Saigon. Depending on who you ask, you get a different answer - so I thought I'd ask you Reddit Historians. How did the Vietnam War end, and what happened? Thank you!

Not only its written by winners but its also hard to give good citation for so many historical events. How do Historians decide which evidence to trust? Does this increases the burden of reading multiple books on the same topic to conclude anything about a topic.

p.s.: There are of course lot of exceptions to this especially for recent history.

Before the Cold War, were there any knightly or lordly Jews anywhere in Europe? Did mostly Jewish-friendly states, like medieval Poland or early modern England, ever give landed titles to Jews?

Is this an accurate summation or is there more to the story about why these confrontations may have been strategically necessary?

I'm working on a unit plan, with one of the lessons revolving around Julius Caesar as a military leader and what the military was like at the time in regards to weapons, armour, tactics, regulations etc...I'm looking for primary sources that may mention specific descriptions of this sort of thing so that I can include some passages.

India is a pretty huge country, I think it didn't have huge naval power or strong army, ut still it had several kingdoms and rulers. How did they all bow don to the British without any notable resistance?

In The Godfather Part II, a young Vito Andolini's name is changed to Corleone (the date is stated as 1901). Other media and cultural lore has portrayed name changes at the island too.

Did this practice occur, and if it did, under what conditions was it sanctioned?

Dishonourable as fuck.

I am researching for an article and I would love to hear from you, if you know of any naval battle where the defeated part lost due to the orders given to the captain(s) by a higher ranking officer on land before the battle, e.g.: Captain knows, that to save his ship, his must turn around. - The admiral, however, forbid any change of course. - The ship is lost.

Anything spring to mind? Thank you.

Hi all,

This is my first time posting in r/AskHistorians so bear with me.

I have an undergraduate degree in Cultural Anthropology and Medieval History (double major so I guess technically 2 degrees?) and my plan was always to go back to school for a graduate degree in Museum Studies. I graduated with a lower GPA that I would have liked, and I probably do not look very desirable to many graduate programs. As a result, I have begun to think of other ways that I can pad my resume to look more desirable.

A little about myself, I actually found out my senior year (of college) that I have had un-diagnosed ADHD my whole life, so while that is not an excuse, I've always had trouble with school in general. I am very smart, which is how I got by, but my work ethic is kind of all over the place (attention spans, man). History professions are generally really competitive and conservative, so I know I'd only be hurting myself by offering this up as an excuse. It's very much a hard work gets rewarded atmosphere, as it should be, and I feel that many programs would continue to view my ADHD as a weakness, even though I now have it under control.

So currently I have a job as an office assistant in an engineering firm. I will be starting to learn project coordination soon, and I already handle the accounts payable, expenses, supplies, travel arrangements, answering phones, and scheduling office events/training/meetings. I like what I do, and I'm very good and coordinating, so I decided to go back for an MBA in Project Management. I want to do this so I can be promoted in my current job (and thus making more money and getting more responsibilities) and because I think it would look good to many Museum Studies programs. My thinking is that working in groups and managing people is a part of every job and is applicable in so many real world situations that, even though it is not directly history related, it would help me to stand out in a good way. I would love feedback on this decision. Do you think it would help me in the admission process? (along with outstanding GRE scores, even though my GPA sucks) Do you think that I should try something else? Do you think I should just give up on getting into a program?

I figured that, getting an MBA would give me a hands down "hirable degree" in the terms of non-History related fields, and make me look like an actual competitive applicant. I could also get promoted within my current company to a position utilizing that degree, so I could pay it back and save up for the next one much quicker. I would much rather find a position using my history degree, but with only an undergrad I'm convinced those don't actually exist.

tl;dr if i get an MBA will it actually look better for Museum Studies programs or only in theory?