So far every communist country (that I can think of ) has also been a dictatorship or something similar. Had there been any movements for a democratically run communist state? If there have been, why did they fail?

I just want to see what religion combats with what is recorded in history.

what was the general feeling toward the opponent in the Civil War?? Did one hate the other more, for example did Southerners hate Northerners more or vice versa?

With all the water crises in the United States right now it made me wonder why we lawns are still such a "thing".

I thought slavery had ended in the British Isles in the 18th century, but was still legal in colonies like India.

I typically think of Western Europe as having a higher standard of living than Eastern Europe, but I'm not sure of when that exactly developed.

Considering how Prussia went to war against the Second French Empire for Alsace-Lorraine, I find it strange how Prussia didn't invade Switzerland for the German-speaking Cantons.

Is this because there was less Communist activity in Laos and Cambodia? If so, why didn't those regions have a figure similar to Ho Chi Minh to lead resistance against the French?

I'm looking to introduce myself to Byzantine History and on that note i've specifically wanted to read Ostrogorsky's history. Are there important developments in the field or ideas which have since been overturned that i should be aware of? Am i misinforming myself terribly by starting with such an old text?

More importantly, which theoretical framework does Ostrogorsky's History belong to? I'm assuming he is a marxist since he taught in Yugoslavia.

Reading about the Vietnam Conflict, the Partisans, the Afghanistan conflicts, and many others, it is a common theme that conventional militarizes have a difficult time dealing with non conventional forces. I have read about the brutality of some ground forces and how much that doesn't help, but I find very little in the way of how any army has successfully counteracted irregulars. What makes this issue so thorny?

my history book says stalin was caught completely by surprise by operation barba rossa, but I also heard that this isn't true. So I want to know what historians of reddit think about this

I understand that Louis XIII outlawed dueling and Louis XIV tried to crack down even more, but according the Wikipedia article, "duelling continued unabated, and it is estimated that between 1685 and 1716, French officers fought 10,000 duels, leading to over 400 deaths."

So I'm curious as to the consequences on those who were involved in duels or killed people in duels. I have general sense that enforcement of penalty was haphazard and inconsistent, but please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Would it matter if the opponents were of relatively equal social status/wealth? Would the families of the deceased press for charges or were they more likely to just perceive the death-in-duel as acceptable?

I understand there are probably influences such as the construction of the Hoover Dam, proximity to Los Angeles, weather, probably mob influence as well.. but can anyone offer an explanation as to why the disparity between the two cities is so off today? Or what happened over time that made Vegas stand out as opposed to Reno?

As an aside, intelligence work and the concept of spies intrigues me. I've read Benedict Arnold's biography (I nearly sympathize with him, because he did basically secure the French with his heroics at Saratoga) but I was curious if there were any other agents on either side that made a large impact? Is there any suggested reading on spies or intelligence officers during the Revolution?

And if I haven't exhausted you all with my inquiries, I also found that American forces were very often bailed out by weather. The few examples I can think of include the issues Howe had moving troops by sea (were he as successful as he could have been rounding everyone up and redeploying where he deemed fit, I think we could have been routed much more easily.), and the British reinforcements in Canada being slowed by winter (which, if they had constructed their ships fast enough and had taken off soon enough, could have crashed down the Hudson and taken New England.)

So I guess my last question would be: knowing that we didn't have meteorology in the way we have today, was the American side lucky, and British just unlucky? Or was there any chance the American could have been aware of how badly the weather would turn things in their favor?

When people speak of the west, they mean Europe, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zeland. I would think Latin America would be included, but it's not. Why?