I requested my maternal uncle’s military records regarding his service in WWII. They withheld all but 4 pages, and even those were heavily redacted. I know he was in Europe and he was an officer. I don’t think he was ever in combat. He was fluent in English, Spanish, Russian and German. As kids, we were told not to ever ask him about his service - it was all hush hush. The war ended 76 years ago. Why would his records be so inaccessible?

Were the Khmer Rouge revolutionary forces organized into specific kind of structure, like a usual military force would be? If so, what was it like? Did they have different ranks to indicate skill, experience level and certain jobs? Or were they more just a mishmash of radical fighters and thugs, although as they gained more power and throughout the years right before they came to rule, I would assume they had some kind of hierarchy and structure to organize military forces and government bodies.

I am predominantly interested in the Khmer Rouge BEFORE they were in power, pre-1975. I am writing a work of historical fiction set before that period, which focuses on the KR as a revolutionary force trying to topple the current government, but it's very difficult to find any detailed information about them before then. A few of the characters are revolutionaries with the KR, and I'm trying to figure out what ranks or titles they might have, and if they are with a specific unit of fighters and what it's name should be.

Furthermore, and sorry if I'm not allowed to ask more than one question in a post (kind of new to reddit here, long time lurker, but rarely ever posted), but were there different terms and phrases used for different types of cadres, fighters and groups, or different jobs? Not just formal ranks, but informal and slang terms. What acronyms or abbreviated terms were there, if any?

During the time they were in power, ammunition and other costly necessities had to be rationed, because they couldn't afford them. Was this also the case before, during the revolution? I imagine it was, but thought they may also have just got by with stealing weapons, ammunition and making their own, and may have even been better off that way, as under the regime that kind of independent scavenging might have been seen as capitalistic and punished, so that's why so many things (such as ammunition) were not available, not just because they didn't have money, but because they weren't allowed to use other resources and find their own material, as was deemed unacceptable by the regime. Although I'm not sure if those same kind of policies were implented during the days when they were just a rebel forces, and only came later? I'm wondering if they were less strict back then and it was acceptable for guerrillas to steal, build their own weapons and find materials independently because it would have helped the revolution, but also they were against the people they'd be stealing from and may have viewed it as an act of resistance.

Finally, my last question. Under the regime, KR members and soldiers wore uniforms of black pyjamas and red scarves. Would they have worn these same uniforms during the revolutions, or did they not come until during the regime was in power. I'm thinking the rebel fighters might have just worn peasant or civilian clothes during the years before that, but figure it would have been more likely for them to wear the uniforms in the very latter years (1972 - 1974), right before they came to power.

In the scene I'm currently writing in my piece, there are Khmer Rouge revolutionaries sporting the black uniforms and red scarves, but it takes place in 1970, and I'm unsure if that's right or not. They are also shown to try and not waste bullets, for not being able to afford any. Also wondering if that works given the time period, or how it would given the context (they are revolutionaries, not actually in power.)

Thank you very much for helping out an amateur historical fiction/alternate history writer!

From 1978 to 1992 a communist or socialist oriented government was in power in afghanistan. This group was led by the socialist party People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. Did this party have popular support? Although the government failed with the fall of the Soviet Union was it successful in any of its goals, and did it improve afghan's lives? Was the government efficient and able to successfully deal with any challenges thrown at it?

The average person in the US (and I’d imagine in most of the west as well) has essentially always seen Afghanistan as a terrorist state and/or a failed, clan-like state where ethnic groups clash in the background of a weak central government. Given this, as well as the fact that Afghanistan is disintegrating as we speak, it is amazing that 50 years ago it was a stable nation that many tourists visited. How is it that a nation that was able to hold itself together throughout the early Cold War up until the mid 1970s end up as the precise definition of a failed state in our present geopolitical environment?

Hello everyone! I'm writing an RPG book on the Viking Era and was looking for some names and interactions between Vikingrs and the continent. So, here are my questions:

• What did they call "Germany" (I know Germany didn't exist yet, so multiple smaller titles would help too, "Russia" (same as Germany), and "the Netherlands"
• What was the Holy Roman Empires' response to these attacks? Better yet, did any major powers attempt any expeditions into the north to stem the tide?
• Are there any MAJOR groups that I've massively overlooked in these questions? Besides the British Isles, I have extensive information on them

Thank you all so much!!!

Would we have seen more centralized power structures in Scandinavia without the christianization of the region? From a cursory glance, it seems the two are related phenomena even if the relationship isn't necessarily one of cause and effect.

According to my understanding, the way we learn history is mostly determined by reading accounts of source's within the period they were living in. I could imagine that the further into history we go, the harder it gets to verify sources.

Since I'm a science guy, Im quite interested in how historians concider their sources to be "true". In science we confirm hypothesis by conducting (laboratory) research and reading papers written by other researchers -who conducted similar experiments- on the subject. Once a hypotheses has been confirmed/refuted by a study the general consensus moves towards the path with the most results proving a theory.

I can image that confirming a historical hypothesis will be more difficult, since results can't be reproduced in a laboratory setting.

Also, their might be a bias depending on the source. Especially considering the saying 'history is written by the victor'. In a laboratory setting it's quite easy to debunk a theory since we can reproduce the result. Even if the author is making false claims, reproducing these results should expose the author's bias. This seems to be different in history since you're comparing one word against another.

So for example: writers from side X claim they fought a battle and had a decisive victory over side Y with limited casualties while side Y claimed they have lost the battle but inflicted heavy casualties on side x while having low casualties themselves. Both accounts claim they lost the battle, but the stories have a huge discrepancy. How can you prove which side is telling the truth?

Simplifying my questing (tl;dr): How can historians know for certain that a specific historical event is described they way it truly happended; Is it possible that the way we learn history flavouring historical accounts of the victor or only source?

Im just conflicted and a bit confused about the sinking of the Belgrano and if it was justified or not.

Some people also say that the Islands belonged to Argentina, but from what I’ve read, they were discovered by the British and French at around the same time? (I think the French discovered the Islands around one year earlier in 1764 and founded a colony. The British claimed the whole island in 1765. Did the countries know about each other? If not that must have been awkward) Then the Spanish wanted them, kicked the British off the island- followed by the British reclaiming them and leaving them practically unguarded for ages? I’m aware that the Argentinians send several people over with fishing rights and that there was a conflict between Argentina and Britain (this led to Britain being more present starting from 1833) after they send a merchant to the islands and put him in charge of defending them. (America got involved and destroyed his settlement after he arrested some American whale Hunters?) But I’m still I‘m not sure where exactly their claim for the islands came from? Yeah no, I am kind of generally lost to where Argentina came into this.

Im also wondering why Argentina decided to suddenly make a move on said islands in 1982. Was it because their Leader realised that they were in a really bad economical and social situation? Did he think that an easy win would better his peoples spirits? Did he expect the UK to react so strongly? Did Thatcher use more Hairspray then usual? (Because damn her hair seems to disregard the laws of physics)

I’m sorry if none of this makes sense, but I’m trying to hold a PowerPoint about Thatchers time in office (it’s not a school project so I hope I’m not breaking rules), it’s 1 am and I just threw her biography out of the window.

I’ve seen contradictory accounts of whether medieval peasants were able to eat meat on a regular basis. Some say that pork and fish were fairly affordable for medieval peasants, but others say that fish and meat was out of reach of peasants, and they had to risk poaching on the lord’s land to get meat. Which is true? Or were both true depending on time/place?

Are the depictions of the people, the clothes and just the general settings of the Bible used as primary sources?

I mean, is the Bible treated more as a religious text composed of tales and 'fiction' (the turning water into wine miracle, for example) or as a close depiction of life back then?

I think this is kind of a dumb question, and I'd say it is used as a historical text, but someone will probably have a way more informed opinion.

Thank you so much!!

I'm a pianist and a classical music lover, and I've heard legends about Liszt as "the first rock star" that gave me the impression that his music, and maybe all classical music, was way more popular among the general public back in the day than it is today. Is that true? Were there regular people going to orchestras and operas back then? If so, when and why did that start to change? If not, what was the "pop music" of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries in Europe? What music did most people listen to, if any?

Hainan island was populated by the Han Chinese way earlier than Taiwan was. Why is that? It was literally next to continent Asia's shore, how can any of them miss that?

Im sure that many questions on the spread of Christianity have been answered, but I am wondering about the interpersonal aspect. Why did missionaries have such an easy time with so many different cultures? One would think that most people would not be open to foreign strangers telling you your entire religion and way of life is false. What encouraged so many kings and other leaders to convert their kingdoms to Christianity? Obviously, the Roman empire helped spread Christianity to most of mainland Europe. But for instance the Norse, the middle eastern and Asian countries were mostly converted by missionaries. Countries with deeply entrenched religious beliefs all converted no matter how individual or strong those beliefs. I understand that the process wasn't fast or easy everywhere, but missionaries are received with enough sympathy that I have wondered this for a long time.

If this aspect of this question has been answered somewhere else I apologize, please let me know.

Thank you.

I've read that women spent two or more hours a day grinding grain for their family in the medieval period, probably the most time-intensive labor they engaged in.

This strikes me as odd for the simple reason that they didn't have to. I've eaten cooked whole oat, buckwheat, wheat, and barley groats before. None of them need to be ground to be consumed, though you need to cook them somewhat longer compared to using ground grain when making porridge or a soup.

So this tells me they were doing this because they (or their husbands) valued bread or porridge made from ground grain much more than they valued those 2 hours of labor.

But how can that be? It must have taken a good amount of labor to stay ahead of the growing/gathering/cleaning/making that needed to happen to keep life going in a medieval village. Could they really afford to throw away two hours a day grinding grain?

Did they consider intervening to help Bulgaria? What would the reaction of the Great Powers have been to such an intervention? And were the Austrian and Hungarian public more sympathetic to?

Basically the title. I’ve wanted to read the communist manifesto so I can say I know what communism is but I also wanted to read a capitalistic book as a counter study so that I may compare economic ideas and societal living to one another. I have no idea whether there is a counter equivalent to the Communist Manifesto but if there are any historians out there who do please feel free to list any

It's probably obvious by the way I'm framing the question that I don't know much about how radiation or nuclear weapons work, but did anyone who was in the Enola Gay end up suffering from radiation related illnesses after the detonation of the Atomic Bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Hello. I am interested in learning more about this topic and am looking for suggestions for reading material on the topic. Broad overview stuff or specific looks at specific legal systems or anything in between. Open to both layperson reading or academic reading. I'm familiar with reading and writing about academic papers in economics and other social sciences so as long as the material isn't so full of jargon and niche concepts without elaboration that I need to literally be a lawyer or historian to understand what I'm reading I'm open to the suggestion. Thanks in advance!

Why are the major cities of the Canadian prairie provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) farther north away from the US border than those in BC and out east (Ontario, Quebec)? Seems odd to me. Is it just that that's where all the oil was? Were the passes through to BC more navigable there? I would think land further south would be more habitable and farmable, hence the proximity of most of the Canadian population to the southern areas closest to the US border.

I like history very much and read different stuff when i have time. But one thing i have always wondered about and never found a real answer is what year did people from say XIV or XV (centuries are an example, as i am interested in the medieval period in general) century medieval Europe think it was at that time? Did they say for example that the current year is 1324 or did they count years differently at the time and the Gregorian calendar reformed things?

Apologies for my long winded title. I am conducting research on medieval trade, and have found several answers as to where the Silk Road ended in the West (Constantinople, Antioch, Venice, Rome, etc.). Increasingly, it seems that the term 'Silk Road' encompasses a variety of trading networks, and thus has not concrete start or end. If the Silk Road did have a concrete starting/ending point in the West, where was it , and what qualified it as a starting or ending point as opposed to other Western trading hubs?

in history lesson, alliance system usually credited as one of main reason that caused the war, but rarely it's explained how the alliance it self formed. reading history little back before WW1, you will found country that later allied in WW1 was arch-nemesis for hundred of years previously.

like, take central alliance for example. Prussia and Austria is fighting war at each other over German speaking world dominance since HRE era. While Habsburg Austria and Ottoman has fighting over Balkan and Mediterranean dominance since like those empire formation.

situation isn't much better either for allied powers. France and Britain are in each other throat for... eternity at that point. and UK and Russia is fighting war over colonial dominance in Central Asia. UK and USA relation isn't exactly good considering UK supporting confederacy in civil war.

so. how the alliance formed? what the cause those alliance? what even that lead to those country decision to made alliance setting aside their past grudge?