This might be touching on a very sensitive subject but i'm really curious. Asians historically in america were largely looked down on until only fairly recently similarly to what the . How did they get to the point they are at now where they seem highly integrated into main stream american society whereas the black community still sees a lot of racial issues?

What did they do different?

I know the basics, like teaching Nazi rhetoric to the Nazi youth and taking advantage of prejudices that already existed, but that's all I know. I'm writing a short story on someone living through the rise of the Third Reich and I want it to realistically show all of the steps that led to such fervent devotion.

I'm also curious because I have ancestors who survived the Holocaust (I'm Jewish) and as the old saying says, "know thy enemy."

I was wondering if lighting fires across long distance for alerting or messageing really happened? Not like smoke signals, but across mountain ranges or long plains to alert to invasion.

My friend won one today and we are still discussing the origin, nobody in here knows it...

I've read (in articles I can no longer locate) that the main difference between the treaties of WWI and WWII was that the Treaty of Versailles was punitive in nature, which directly led to Hitler's rise and Nazi Germany; while the treaties that ended WWII sought to make the economies of Axis nations interdependent with their victor's economies- thereby making a future war economically unviable. Is this notion supported by the facts and circumstances of post-WWII Europe?

If this analysis is not supported, why was the peace that was achieved after WWII so much more successful than the Treaty of Versailles? To clarify, I understand why the Treaty of Versailles was unsuccessful in preventing WWII (too much blame placed on Germany; significant but incomplete punishments that only served to motivate more war, etc). What I'm curious about is whether or not the creators and enforcers of WWII's treaties were explicitly pursuing an interdependent economy in Europe. Or, alternatively, is the current interdependence of European economies due to other factors?

I'm interested in this topic because of this quote by Einstein which goes something like: "I know not what weapons WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." So, I'd love to understand how WWII and its conclusion has thus far been successful in preventing WWIII.

Edit: This sub is awesome. Thanks so much for the thoughtful and intelligent answers.

If anyone is still interested in helping: have there been any historical examples where economic interdependence has been effective in securing peace?

I'm not very educated as far as religion goes so any information on this topic would be of tremendous help! Thank you!

I'm currently reading Victor Davis Hanson's book The Western Way of War and over and over again he claims that the idea of two armies clashing together in a pitched battle on an open field originated in Greek classical antiquity.

I was reading Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization by Paul Kriwaczek before and in that book it is argued that the Sumerians and other Mesopotamian city states like Ur and Uruk would line their armies up and charge each other, just like the Greeks did.

I admit I have only got about a chapter into TWWoW but the claims made in it have been bothering me. Is this a fair reading of Hanson, or has the scholarship moved on?

Considering it had a huge 130mm gun, lots and lots of armor and was as fast as the medium tanks of the time, on paper it looks amazing. What caused the Soviet Armed Forces to decade not to use it?

A friend recently pointed me in the direction of some authors who have seemingly made a career out of discussing Nazi super weapons and the fact that they could have developed an atomic bomb before the United States during WWII, and while interesting, seems to be a less-than accepted truth for the war.

Not being a historian myself, I was curious if there was any credibility to these claims, or that of the Nazi super weapon argument, in general.

I've been reading some books that take place during this time (Master and Commander, Horatio Hornblower) and there always seems to be a telescope at hand. How accurate would this be?

If it's important the books take place on a sloop and a frigate.

I'm reading Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall at the moment and I'm trying to piece together a mental image of Anne Boleyn. She supposedly drove Henry VIII crazy, and I keep wondering whether she'd look at all similar to the women we today consider to be the most beautiful? Following from that, did women like today's sex symbols exist, and were not considered beautiful?

I think the question is pretty straight forward.... Did this aspect of their mythology translate to real live behavior in anyway? If so, was it at all common in the general population, or would this be restricted mostly to religious ritual?

And if not, how did people perceive these actions in the stories, while at the same time condemning the practice in reality?

Tagging this NSFW, just to be safe I guess.

It's common knowledge that most cities are formed on the coast. In the North East of the United States and the south east of Canada this is very present. Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, Boston and many other cities are all on rivers or lakes but there's no large cites on one body of water. Lake Champlain. Why is this?

As the title says, was the MG42 ever used as a coaxial machine gun on German panzers during WW2, or was it only the MG34? Things like the Pz IV, Jagdpanzer 38t, Tiger H, Tiger II, Panther, etc. all used the Mg34 and I'm unsure why the MG42 was never used, at least not to the extent of my knowledge which is why I'm asking here. Thanks