I’m watching the Atlantis episode of spongebob and I really want to know. Most of the articles I read about are clickbait.

At the height of the war, there were roughly 19.2 million women employed in US. To call that a dramatic rise from decades before would be an understatement. I may be wrong about this, but my reading of history leads me to believe that this rise shifted economic power in the US, and made it more balanced among the sexes. Yet, as soon as the men returned from war, that economic power shifted almost completely back to the men and back to where it was in the pre-war days, and that disparity was actually exasperated until every American workplace more or less resembled "Mad Men".

My question is three parts:

First, why did economic power shift so dramatically and quickly back to the pre-war days as soon as all the veterans came back home? I understand that sexism was the main catalyst, but it's the speed at which it all happened that confuses me?

Second, was there any US lawmaker that tried to fight for women's economic power and independence in the immediate post-war era, or did they all more or less work to serve the returning male vets?

Third, did ANY positive aspect of the rise in female employment rates in war era stay after 1945? (By positive I mean quite literally anything that empowered women economically, whether it be women rising in the workplace, the pay gap was ever so slightly closed, etc.)

Measuring from the hypothetical year 0, the Julian calendar has had 15 leap years that the Gregorian calendar didn't- 100, 200, 300, 500, 600, 700, 900, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1700, 1800, and 1900. But the Julian calendar is only 13 days off, putting the brief equivalence from March 1, 200 to February 28, 300.

Why was 300 chosen as the "first" skipped leap year, instead of 100?

By strategic sense, I guess I mean like maybe under ideal conditions (like the initial offensive working out as well as intended) the cavalry may have made a decisive impact. In what I'm reading (Robin Prior's The Western Front from the Cambridge History of WWI) it seems that it was highly wasteful and destructively pointless for the cavalry - it doesn't seem like it would have worked at all in modern trench warfare, at least what I got from the chapter.

I imagine it was much harder for these people to communicate and congregate than it is today, but I am wondering if there was a population who thought that polio fears were overblown.

Thank you!

How has this compared in regards to the usage of the term "Republic"?

Recently I'm reading on viking journeys to America centuries before Columbus. And I became curious if anything like that happened with Australia and explorers from Asian countries. From what I can find online, Australia was first discovered by dutch explorers, but it seems weird to me that countries from South East Asia ( if not farther) weren't at least aware of it's existence before its discovery by the Europeans.

She is most interested in Grant but she likes books about all parts of the war. I’m looking for stuff that is very recent so I know she hasn’t bought it yet. She has most of the volumes of the Grant Papers already but I’ll be checking for good prices on the ones she doesn’t have. Thank you for your help.

How the hell did a guy convince so many people that he was Jesus’s brother, to the point of starting one of the deadliest wars of all time?

Hello, I'm interested in buying those books, but before that I would like to know what you, Historians, that read those books or know the works of David Birmingham have to say. For example, are his works trustworthy or deliver an interesting insight of the subject? Is he a biased historian to a way of thinking that can deturp reality? Something like that. Thank you!

When the Umayyad Caliphate entered Hispania and removed the ruling visigoths from power, only the Kingdom of Asturias remained in the far north. Seeing as pelayo was a Visigoth, the kingdom itself was most likely germanic in its practices, but other people resided in the Kingdom of Asturias, and how did the Visigoths eventually fade from the Iberian peninsula, despite occupying the noble class?

Did Hitler ever meet him?

Let's say I'm a trader in a foreign land, and I'm trying to communicate with the locals. Conveying nouns seems straightforward. If I want to teach them the word "blanket," I point at the blanket I'm selling and say "blanket." They'll likely respond with the word in their language. So far, so good.

Verbs also seem pretty easy. I just do the thing, and then say the word. I walk a bit (or pantomime with my fingers) and say "walk." Simple enough.

Even adjectives don't seem that hard, especially after we have a working vocabulary of nouns and verbs. If they know "blanket" and "rock," I can use that to teach "soft" and "hard."

But how do we get from there to other parts of speech? How would did early cultures communicate grammatical concepts such as "because" or "although" or "therefore" that have no physical equivalent whatsoever?

And what about abstract nouns that have no physical counterpart? Like, I feel as though I could convey "love" or "fear" pretty simply through charades. But what about "duty" or "imagination" or "problem?"

How did we get to a point where all the different languages of the world not only understand each other, but can translate stuff with no direct correlation to the physical world?

"Age of Discovery" is just very Eurocentric; what was the Indocentric perception? Did they see it as themselves reaching out or attracting more trade, or an invasive and disrupting force entering their local historical narratives, or what?

So I read On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society which said it wasn’t uncommon for poorly drilled soldiers to have an aversion to firing, some recorded instances troops where found to have loaded their weapons with musket balls over and over again.

So my question is, if it’s hard enough to get men to fire at the enemy how hard was it get the discipline for mean to stay in formation and give/take volley fire.

I can’t imagine having the discipline to stand in formation as musket balls ripped around me causing Devastating injuries. How did the generals and commanders of these days deal with the psychological aspect of this.

Thanks.

I feel I have the moral duty to study this topic after becoming acquainted with online deniers and realizing I'm completely ignorant on that respect. I wanted to know what are the most commonly accepted primary sources, but I was unable to find that information on Google.

This is something I've seen all over the net, including reddit, but I don't know if it's a joke or real information. The idea being that is relatively easier to break a cypher if you know the encrypted message and at least a part of a decrypted one. So the fact that the Nazis kept writing Heil Hitler at the end of all their messages allow the Allies to figure out how to decrypt the rest of the messages.

If this is false how did the Allies broke the code, I'm not interested in he math but what were the circumstances which lead them to cracking it?

Grew up in another European country and I can't say we studied properly British history in school, so I'm not quite familiar with everything he did, besides his participation in WW2. However, I find a lot of controversial opinions regarding him. Was he considered a good PM at the time or not? Has the opinion of the British people changed since?