I'm working on a paper on the above topic but am having some dificulty locating reliable scources on it. I have a few, such as a compilation of code words used by the Nazis in their writting (EG liquidating rather than murdering, etc) and an article about the temporary slow-down in persecution during the 1936 Olympics, but I would like to find more evidence to really drive home this idea. Do you have any suggestions on where to look, what to search for, or even specific sources if you can think of any? Thanks in advance!

Or have had any part in bringing America into the war on purpose? I don't know if this is a conspiracy theory, I just thought of it while doing some reading for homework.

It seems very convenient that America was brought in and I feel like it would have been very easy for GB to do with the Lusitania.

Did the earliest written documents (about 3500 B.C if i remember correctly) already mentioned people with 2 or more names?

I was looking through some US hospital records from the 1880s that had patients nearly exclusively from mining camps and railroad employees. The ailment listed for many of these guys was "lead" or "leaded." I've seen the term used often in contemporary sources, but what is the modern name for it?

For example, it's generally understood that "consumption" usually meant pulmonary tuberculosis, but the term could be used to describe some other TB-like illness. So what does "leaded" mean? Anything specific? Or is it a vague, catch-all term that covers symptoms common to a variety of illnesses? What were the symptoms?

And what would have been the typical course of treatment for being "leaded" in the 1880s? In the hospital records I looked at, some leaded guys walked out the same day and others were admitted as long as a couple of weeks. The hospital records I have are just admission records, so I don't know what care patients received.

Any specific secondary sources relevant to the topic would be appreciated too!

I'm confident I read this somewhere, but I can't seem to find it in any of my books or on the internet. The details that I remember are of an army setting up camp outside a fortress or stronghold. The general of the outside army instead of attacking right away ran his army through battle formations and practice in front of the enemy and then would have his men charge the gate, only to divert at the last second. He continually did this and lured the army within the stronghold into complacency where they eventually viewed the army as less of a threat and would take longer to man their positions. Eventually, one day, the outside army charged like any other day, but this time did not stop, taking the stronghold and exploiting the others complacency. Any ideas or suggestions would help. Thank you.

The mid 20th century in the United States seems to really stand out as a period of time where popular sentiment was overwhelmingly optimistic about the future - space travel, the possibility of flying cars, jet packs, etc. Were sentiments really that hopeful in actuality?

On top of that, how does that kind of optimism for the future compare with other eras of history? Today it seems like there's much less optimism for the future, between global warming and conflict in the Middle East and such. There's a lot of belief in past eras being the 'golden years' or 'golden generations,' a belief that dates back (IIRC) to Roman and Greek schools of thought - I know Ovid in Metamorphoses talks a lot about his contemporary era was an 'iron' era in comparison the 'golden,' 'silver,' and 'bronze' eras that preceded it.

Hey guys,

I'm currently a 3rd year History major with a focus on Canadian and South East Asian history. I'm relatively new to /r/AskHistorians and I was looking to do some additional learning on the side.

What are, in your opinions, the best history podcasts out there?

You've all seen the educational films about young "Timmy" drinking milk. But how did teenagers and adults stay in shape? How socially acceptable was it to be muscular?

I am curious as to the history of the discrimination of the Romani ethnic group in European history. I do know that they were slaves in Romania for several years and in order in maintain that social order there needed to be serious prejudice in society, which has likely spread through the generations culturally as a part of social consciousness to where it is today, I would say. What do you know /r/AskHistorians?

Been interested in World War II lately, watching too much History channel, and was just curious as to some of the things that were invented during war. Which country invented them, and how long did it take for the opposing force take to realize / steal this new technology.

Cheers!

For instance, I've heard Manhattan was bought for $24 but was more like $1000 in today's money. Was money even a "thing" to them? How did they even have a standard for this sort of trade?

I read Medieval Sieges and Siegecraft by Geoffrey Hindley a little while ago. First of all is it a good source? Secondly he has an account of a siege in there, I think Calais, where the French defenders expelled the non-essential citizens mid siege to conserve food, the English didn't take them in and they starved at the foot of the wall. He also says this was not uncommon. So I guess my question is, is that all true?

Hello! I am currently working my way through the Bible for the first time, to gain both spiritual knowledge... and perhaps a little argumentative knowledge. Haha.

Anyways, I only just finished Genesis the other day, and I am curious to know why the primary figures in the this section, along with the majority of other characters (I.e. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), have such long lives. I'm not necessarily referring to the lives of Noah/Adam, which ranged into the hundreds, but more so those that ranged from 100-200.

So! Why are these people portrayed to have such long lives? Is it symbolic, a misinterpretation, or maybe even a truth?

I ask this sub, because I would like a historical context and the thoughts of Historians. Not to say anything is wrong with Theologians!

Anyways. I appreciate you time! Thanks!

For academic journals and articles i would rank it as reliable, however it gets murky when coming across books on the bookshelf.

Is a book like "Dying to Win" by Robert A. Pape a reliable source or is it not?

Is the "Fruits of War" by Michael White a reliable source or is it just making a big deal out of coincidence?

It has me confused and i have no idea what i should be referencing my comments to questions on this sub-reddit.

I've been studying several points of history, specifically civil and sociopolitical movements (sorry if I botched that term), when this struck me. Throughout the majority of human history as a whole, there has been some sort of strong racism/sexism/general oppression against a certain group, and very little done to change that. Slaves have been dated back to the Egyptian era, not to mention a lowered social status of women, and even in Roman times foreigners were treated as inferior. And throughout history, that's basically been standard. Women have been treated like crap, or at best as inferior peoples, for the majority of all ancient and modern civilisations, and there has been a massive distrust, and sometimes even hate, persecution, and genocide/slavery of peoples of another religion or race due to this prejudice. And nothing much really changed. There were definitely advancements in civil rights at some points throughout history, especially nearing the end of the colonialist era, but it wasn't until really 50ish years ago when what we now know as hate crimes, racism, and sexism, was basically widely accepted in even the most advanced of societies. (And I'm aware that it is still practiced, in some cases even more so than earlier times, in some societies, but I'm talking in regards to 1st world countries, where it is now generally looked down upon by the majority of the population).

So what changed? What caused oppressed people in those last 50-100 years of human to suddenly try and get more? What caused the people 'in charge', the white western ex-colonialist people, to stop in turn with a behavior that was part of everyday life for most of their civilization's's history (Not that any of this is a bad thing of course >_>)? What was it about the thousands of years before that which made doing so unheard of?

It is the Takbīr, but Insha'Allah or Alhamdulillah could also be used.

In many threads on reddit that show videos of current conflicts in the Islamic world people mock Muslims for saying Allahu Ackbar on any occasion. If someone asks why it is said, the answer is usually 'that's what they say, just like 'Oh Jesus''.

Is there a historic reason why Allahu Akbar is used so often? Especially compared to other religious denominations and their phrases?