I’m currently reading Jonathan Fenby’s “History of Modern China” and he makes an interesting claim. As tensions escalated between the communists and KMT the battles became increasingly bloody. He states that soviet advisers taught communist forces flanking manoeuvres to increase their battlefield effectiveness.

Is this correct? Flanking is a pretty simple tactic which makes it surprising that this has to be something taught to them by a third party. Were communist forces prior to soviet assistance in absolute disarray?

Why has Russia never collapsed and fractured in the same way other countries like china have? It's massive geographically, and incredibly diverse culturally and ethnically speaking. One would have thought that a country so disparate and diverse would have collapsed at least a couple of times. Sure, it's lost parts of it a couple of times (e.g. mongolia, kazakhstan etc.) but it's general shape and form has basically stayed the same, maintaining control of huge swathes of land between it's western areas in russia through siberia and into its eastern coast. So how has a country so diverse, geographically, culturally, ethnically etc. stayed mostly together for so long?

Is it actually possible that Scandinavian explorers (vikings) reached what is not the United stats, or Vinland, as they called it?

In hindi Greece is called Yunan. This is still a widely used word and we have stores all over selling Yunani medicine etc. Just curious how both the names orginated, are they linked to each other and why they are so different from each other.

Edit: Thank you all so much! I have a lot to read and I'm looking forward to diving down this rabbit hole :)

After reviewing hundreds or photos, I have seen quite a bit of evidence that German tankers used extra tank tracks as improvised armor. As a scale modeler, I was shocked to not find similar photos for the T-34.

While the T-34/85 has been documented with bedspring armor, I struggle to find good data regarding tread usage on the T-34/76.

Anyone have sources or photos?

I remember, when I visited the USS Iowa in Los Angeles, they gave us the dimensions of the ship and mentioned that the class was designed specifically to be able to fit through the Panama Canal, as being able to quickly move naval vessels from coast to coast was naturally very important to the US Navy and government.

But today's supercarriers like the Nimitz class are obviously way too big to fit through the canal; at what point did the USN decide that, for at least some of their ships, fitting through the canal was less important than the other operational abilities gained by large size? Was it a contentious decision, or simply bowing to the increasing size of new technology and new aircraft? Did the Navy consider making anything other than aircraft carriers too big to fit?

Long story short, I've been researching a very difficult topic for about a year and a half now (Confederate military supply, logistics and manufacturing in the Trans-Mississippi theater), cultivated a TON of leads and information, read a lot of books and articles and examined a few original documents (almost entirely online) and I feel like I've sort of hit a brick wall. Museums and libraries have been difficult to get into with COVID and lack of funds since I'm doing this on my own. I've basically taught myself how to do research while doing this and I'm not sure if I'm making any progress or breaking any new ground on the topic. I'm learning new to me information, but nothing that hasn't been available for a long time. I started with casting a wide net and have ended up with all sorts of information that looks promising but doesn't lead to much and I have a massive backlog of documents to go over. It's quite overwhelming.

I think I need some guidance on how best to focus and conduct my research in the future, since a lot of leads I find go no where or repeat the same information I've found previously. Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!

Reposting this because the last time i posted this it bugged out, either with the sticky comment bot, or just general glitch and it wouldnt let me see the other comments.

When the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated and then the Austrian government sent their demands to Serbia and were denied and then decided to invade Serbia. Why did Germany get involved in the great war? I know they were allies with Austria and wanted to support and help them invading Serbia but why did they invade France and the other neighbouring countries? Such as Belgium, France, Russia, ETC. I could be getting my information wrong, if i did i do apologize and feel free to correct me if i made a mistake. As i said i would love to know the reasoning why Germany decided to join in the great war after the assassination of the Archduke?

I'm not sure where else to go right now as I am unable to speak with mentors from my school. I recently graduated with B.A.s in English and History, and I am interested in going to graduate school for anything along the lines of ancient/classical studies, medieval studies, art conservation, archival work and research. Most of the programs require a working knowledge of Latin, Ancient Greek and a modern language (mine is French). I was hoping to go to grad school by next year, but I need to spend time working on these languages. As historian, how would you suggest I go about learning these languages? I cannot seem to find any two-year (or even one-year) track programs that will teach me these languages, and I could use any help/advice, thank you!!

The US ran several air raids on Japan that relied on China as support, either as a landing area or a crashing area with crews being rescued by Chinese people. Were the nationalist Chinese and the Communist Chinese agreed to just let Americans be dropping bombs on the Japanese?

I'm reading a historical fiction novel based in late 19th century Paris about some French army officers -- An Officer and a Spy, by Robert Harris. One of the characters mentioned that Paris was frequently overridden with the stench of sewers, and how people could not walk outside without covering their faces with cloth handkerchiefs, or could not eat at sidewalk cafes, and those people with balcony apartments could not go outside to enjoy their views.

I think I'm safe in assuming that this had something to do with the Parisian sewer system at the time, but specifically what would cause this? From my impression, it was very common, but did not happen all the time. From the book, it seems it would sometimes happen daily, sometimes not occur for weeks or months and went on for years.

What (specifically) was going on? I'm hoping for a technical as well as a historical explanation if anyone has one.

Or did they always think that way? It seems difficult for me as a modern to think of the day-to-day life of someone on the coast of the Mediterranean or the Black Sea in the early modern period for example, where any day might mean a potential pirate attack by a squadron of ships traveling with the blessings of a prince or emir, as "peace".

Hi all, sorry if this question isn't for this sub. I just finished Ken Anderson's "Hitler and the Occult", which sets out to disprove Hitler's Hollywood created relationship with the Occult. It gives a good breakdown against these myths, but really reinforced Himmler as a culty, supernatural type. I'm just interested in reading more about his (in sure heinous and shocking) view, about his refurbished castle, etc.

To bound the question let's start from 1789 to the present day. And exclude persons convicted of crimes where enslavement or forced labor was part of the sentence.

Follow up questions if present, how widespread was enslavement of different races in the U.S? Was it limited to certain regions?

E.g. would an Indian man in the U.S. have probably been a slave?

The passage from Freeman reads:

There was a certain young and beautiful nun who had taken a vow of virginity, but by human weakness had given in to youthful desire and slept with a man. She became pregnant and her womb began to swell. She came to Brigid to seek her forgiveness and help. Drawing on the potent strength of her matchless faith, holy Brigid blessed the young woman so that the fetus disappeared and she became a virgin again.

It's also interesting to note that the story doesn't shame the nun for having an affair. While it's treated as a sin, the nun is motivated by "human weakness" and "youthful desire," rather than being portrayed negatively. Brigid also readily forgives the nun and performs the miracle, making the fetus "disappear." If a venerated saint such as Brigid was said to perform a miracle similar to an abortion, how would women seeking abortions be viewed at the time? Would nuns seeking abortions be treated any differently than other women?

Today I was walking past a car that had the ichthys symbol on the back of it, and it got me to thinking that the symbol had gone from one of people of faith hiding from authorities and trying to find one another, to a way for people to obviously demonstrate their faith to another. And it raised two questions in my mind:

1. did ichthys actually work, or were Roman authorities quickly alerted to the meaning of the symbol?

2. when did ichthys transition from a secret symbol to one that people display openly?

In my field there are a lot of publications about the history of the field. But not of them are written by people with training as historians. I suspect a lot of it would be very easily critiqued from a quality perspective. What are the basic principles that a trained historian would use to establish and give an account of the history of something. How might I be able to see what was missing in terms of process and standards from the work in my field ?

When slavery was legal in the U.S., did the law give any protection for slaves? For example, was it technically illegal to kill or beat a slave for no reason?

I know practically speaking they'd have little to no effect. But I wonder in the South whether the lawmakers had any social conscience whatsoever as to how slaves were treated. Or whether slaves were treated no differently than property according to the law for which a slaveowner had absolutely no restrictions.