Home > History


  • What foods did the German army eat as they pushed east into the vast expanses of emptiness?

    4 answers
  • Was islam actually spread by guns & gun powder instead of by the sword?

    Best answer: No, Islam began and started to spread in the early 7th century CE, Gun powder was not invented until the 9th century CE.
    8 answers
  • Why were the 1960's such a disruptive time?

    Best answer: Britain started that decade as a major industrial powerhouse and then ended it with humiliating IMF loans and devaluing the pound. Then came the 70s ...
    13 answers
  • If the French owned the massive tract of land later called the Louisiana purchase,what proof is there they actually owned it?did anyone?

    Tell the Indians they were on French owned lands? Was there any wall for demarcation of territory? Did they have French soldiers every 10 miles in forts and outposts? How can they say they owned the land surely it is a nonsense.
    5 answers
  • What was the best thing about the 70's?

    Best answer: We had an incredible amount of music diversity back then. And there was so much natural talent (not computer generated or modified).

    Economically wages still rose at a steady rate before stagnating after 1980. Also back then savings accounts earned 5.25% interest. :sigh: The good old days.
    28 answers
  • Did Bill Clinton really have Monika Lewinsky give him oral sex in the oval office?

    Best answer: Yes, Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, which included her giving him oral sex. IIRC their sexual contact never actually happened in the oval office itself, but in a small private office adjoining the oval office (not that that makes much difference).

    Although the affair began in 1995, the public did not learn about it until January of 1998, over a year after Clinton was reelected. The story was first broken by the right wing muckraking web site The Drudge Report, which reported that Newsweek reporter Michael Issikoff was working on a story about an affair between Clinton and an intern. Newsweek published the story four days later. Although Clinton denied the affair for a long time, it became a huge scandal.

    But the American people had their chance to weigh in during the 1998 midterms, almost ten months after the scandal first broke. Republicans expected to win big because of the scandal. Instead, they lost five seats in the House and gained zero seats in the Senate. This was a shocking result given that the president's party almost always loses seats in the midterm elections It became clear that the American people didn't share Republicans (largely faux) outrage about the scandal. Americans largely accepted the argument put forward by the Clinton camp, that Clinton's actions were personally immoral but not illegal or professionally unethical. They believed that his efforts to conceal the relationship were motivated by a desire to avoid personal embarrassment after being hounded by partisan Republicans who were seeking any way to stop a president who they had proven unable to defeat at the ballot box. It didn't help that Republicans were mired in their own sex scandals. Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House admitted to his own extramarital affair in the middle of the scandal and then his slated replacement resigned because he had been caught having an affair. Some of these affairs were uncovered by pornographer Larry Flynt, who offered cash payouts to people who could prove an affair with a Republican official.

    So it's technically incorrect to say that Americans reelected Clinton after the Lewinsky scandal because they didn't know about it when they elected him. However, Americans refused to punish Democrats for Clintons infidelity in the 98 election and poll after poll showed that Clinton's popularity actually increased during the impeachment hearings. Moreover, while Americans didn't know about the Lewinsky affair in 1994, they did know about other accusations of infidelity. A woman named Gennifer Flowers had alleged that she and Clinton had an affair while he was Governor of Arkansas. A sensational article in a right wing magazine (written by then right wing operative and future Clinton backer David Brock) had contained accusations from former Arkansas State Troopers that Governor Clinton had used them to procure sexual partners for himself. The "troopergate" article, which was published during Clinton's first year in office, contained a reference to a woman identified only as "Paula" who the article says had agreed to a sexual relationship with Clinton. That woman was an Arkansas state employee named Paula Jones. After seeing herself mentioned in the article, and with the financial backing of right wing millionaires looking to take down Clinton, Jones sued the president for sexual harassment. All of these things were known before the 96 election and Americans voted for Clinton anyway. The explanation is generally that Americans believed that Clinton had had affairs and pursued other women (pop culture generally assumed that these women were telling the truth and I certainly believed that a lot of them were truthful and Clinton's denials weren't). But Americans didn't regard his philandering as disqualifying from office. I think there's been a bit of a reassessment of the Jones sexual harassment claims in recent years, but at the time most Americans seemed to have regarded it as a clumsy come on. Clinton did not force himself on Jones and did not retaliate against her professionally for turning him down (in fact she was promoted afterwards) so many people minimized its significance, not taking into account how intimidated this low level worker would have felt being summoned to the Governors hotel room for sex.

    But your other accusation about Hillary Clinton is much more problematic. To start with, even if we take the dimmest view of Bill Clinton's conduct with regard to women it would be perverse to argue that this should be a strike against his wife. Indeed, she was perhaps the principle victim of his infidelity. So the argument that this somehow disqualifies her makes no sense.

    More importantly, however, is that even if we were to say that Bill Clinton's sexual infidelity somehow reflected on his wife, the fact was that in 2016 her opponent was infinitely worse. Trump has talked openly, even bragged, about his supposedly rampant infidelity. Unlike the Clintons, who have been married for over 40 years despite their problems, Trump has been divorced twice and has cheated on all of his wives (although his infidelity against Melania was not known until after the election). Trump has publicly fantasized on multiple occassions about having sex with his eldest daughter and also speculated about the future size of his then infant daughter's breasts. He had admitted in interviews to barging into changing rooms at pageants in order to see the contestants undressed, even saying that he did it with his teen pagaents, which included contestants as young as 14. Another tape contained him praising the appearance of a 10 year old girl and saying "perhaps I'll be dating you in a few years". He had also publicly praised the taste in "women" of his good friend Jeffrey Epstein, then a convicted pedophile who had plead guilty to trafficking underage girls for purposes of prostitution. Then, of course, there's the Access Hollywood tape where Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, a revelation followed up by accusations from IIRC 20 women that he had sexually assaulted or raped them. Whatever you think of Bill Clinton, he was infinitely better than Trump when it came to sex and the treatment of women.
    24 answers
  • When do you think Hitler lost the war?

    I would say December 1941. A lot of people will say wait a minute thats too early... German forces of summer 1941 were their most strongest and they failed to conquer Russia.. they would never have the initiative like they did in the summer of 1941, plus US had entered the war in the same month on the side of the Allies (Russia and Great Britain). When do you think Hitler lost the war? I am not asking about the day of the capitulation .. i will need to clarify this for the lower IQ folks out there.
    44 answers
  • Did the 7 years war caused the American revolution?

    Best answer: Yes. There's a couple of ways that it casued the Revolution.

    First, by eliminating the French from North America, it removed an enemy which the American colonists saw as an existential threat. Without the French in Canada waiting to pounce on them, they had less need for the aparatus of the British Empire, particularly the British military. Prior to the war, the British military had been seen as a force which protected the North American colonists from potential conquest by the French. Afterwards, that wasn't needed anymore and Americans were more free to revolt. You can see in the geography of the Revolution that places which still needed the Empire's protection didn't revolt. In the British Caribbean, for example, they had some of the same greivances as the mainland colonists but they didn't revolt because they needed the British military to protect them from slave revolts. The mainland colonists didn't have this.

    Second, by eliminating the French threat, the war opened up the trans-Appalachian west to Anglo-American settlement. Prior to this, the region had been hard for British colonists to settle because the French were there along with French supported Native Americans. After the war, colonists began pouring into the west, setting off conflict with an imperial government which wanted to limit western settlement both to placate Indian allies and to prevent the American colonies from growing too fast.

    Third, and perhaps most importantly, Britain incurred massive debts during the Seven Years War. The British fiscal state was tremendous advantage to them in war time and allowed them to defeat their French rivals decisively. But it also resulted in a huge mountain of debt. In order to pay off this debt, the British resorted to increased taxes. Imperial reformers, in a bid to establish British supremacy over the colonies, particularly sought to expand them in the Americas. The problem was that the colonists didn't believe that Parliament had the right to tax them like this and regarded the centralist scheme of British imperial reformers as a threat to their liberties.
    9 answers
  • Were there civilians casualties in the American revolutionary war?

    Best answer: In general, battles in the Revolution were fought using linear warfare in open areas. Civilians were not generally involved and had time to leave the area. Civilian casualties were relatively rare for this reason, but there are instances if you look deeply enough. One example is a cannonball during the Battle of Princeton which was reported to have shot off a woman's leg. See pg 36 of the below:


    Another example of a civilian casualty is Hannah Caldwell, the wife of the Reverend James Caldwell. This occurred during the Second Battle of Springfield in 1780. The Rev Caldwell was an active patriot and famously handed out copies of Watts Psalms from his church to be used as wadding for musket balls... "Give 'em Watts, boys!" His wife was shot dead though an open window and British or Hessians were blamed for her deliberate murder in revenge for her husband's role in the battle. The fact is still disputed by historians, some insist it was an accident, and the house itself is a museum.

    Another very significant civilian casualty was Jane McCrea. She was the fiance of a British officer with Burgoyne's army, which was then invading New England in an effort to divide the colonies along the Hudson River. Burgoyne issued a proclamation threatening to unleash the "Indian savages" on any colonists who did not cooperate with his army, i.e., supply food, beverages, intelligence, etc. Jane McCrea was murdered and scalped by Indians assigned to escort her and this, in combination with Burgoyne's threat, enraged the colonists. The Battle of Saratoga was the result, though some modern historians downplay the role of the McCrea murder.

    A question relative to this is often brought up: in the movie "Patriot," with Mel Gibson, the protagonist, Col. William Tavington, brilliantly acted by Jason Isaacs, deliberate burns to death an entire congregation by lashing the doors shut before torching it. No such incident occurred in the American Revolution; in fact, Col, Tavington was based on Sir Banastre Tarleton, a bloodthirsty cavalryman who fought in the southern campaigns. Tarleton was a ruthless fighter but he was also a gentleman; Thomas Jefferson himself was briefly a prisoner of Tarleton and praised the British commander for his gentlemanly conduct towards him.
    6 answers
  • Was Stalin a scientist?

    9 answers
  • Was the American Civil War really a Civil War?

    For an armed conflict to be considered a civil war it would involve belligerents of the same country to fight one another, so didn't the Confederacy establish their own country separate from the Union? Was it a civil war at least in the view of the Confederacy? Please excuse my naiveness.
    11 answers
  • Was the Pacific campain against the Japanese more similar to the US involvement i. the Vietnam war than the European campain against Germany?

    Best answer: Only in the sense that it often took place in a jungle environment.
    7 answers
  • Why was their such a resistance towards women’s right to vote?

    Best answer: America was founded by white men. They designed the country to distribute the power among themselves. When political issues rose that potentially could compromise that power, some resistance surfaced.
    The equality/inequality debate has dominated politics many times. Women's suffrage, civil rights, equal rights, marriage equality were all issues championed by the left wing resisted by the right (it's in the history books). Even today, there's a controversial gender pay gap the right wing dismisses. Had equal rights been ratified, there probably wouldn't be a gender pay gap controversy.
    15 answers
  • Is it ironic that the 13 colonies say they fought against tyranny,but enforced tyrannical laws on everyone possible as soon as they won?

    Best answer: Every revolution eventually consumes itself. Every revolution eventually goes against the very tenets of the beliefs and ideas that spawned it. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, they all came about because people in those countries wanted and demanded change and were willing to bring about those changes by blood. But once things were different, the people in charge changed their priorities. Everybody thinks that having power or wealth or both wouldn't change who they really are. But those things do change people. And rarely for the better.
    8 answers
  • Why did Hitler perceive the Jews as evil?

    11 answers
  • What are factual reasons any 9-11 Terrorist Attacks were a Inside Job conspiracy theories are unbelievable and nonsensical?

    6 answers
  • Who invented pancakes?

    Some of you might know the search term did abraham lincoln invent pancakes but i wanna know who actually invented pancakes
    7 answers
  • Why does it seem like Germany always starts the world wars??? And why did Germany lose both wars big time? Does Germany have a curse on it?

    World War 1 started after the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand got assassinated! World War 2 was started by stupid Hitler, who was born in Austria! No wonder they got their butts kicked during both wars! All they really cared about was chasing after the Jews! Of course if we ever have a third World War, it will be started right here in America by a man named Trump! Here it comes! Don't say I didn't warn y'all.
    16 answers
  • How many people died in the Iraq war (2003-2011)? Including soldiers and civilians.?

    Best answer: The US made a point of not counting, and only reporting deaths of US soldiers, as if nobody else was hurt.
    Independent estimates give numbers of about a milion Iraqis who died. That is a million deaths of men, women and children. Also injuries are usually about ten times that number, so an estimate is ten million injuries. Plus there are birth defects from depleted uranium from US ammunition, as well as ongoing violence and bombings now that Saddam is no longer there to maintain control.
    US media have been very quiet about it, but Bush and Blair should have been tried for massive war crimes over that.
    4 answers
  • Why did Joseph Goebbels kill his own children at the wars end?

    Best answer: Goebbels was a true believer and didn't want his kids to live in a world where the Nazis had lost. The only one who survived was Goebbels' stepson Harald Quant, his wife's son from a previous marriage. Harald was a Luftwaffe officer and was in an Allied POW camp when Joseph and Magda Goebbels decided to kill the rest of the family.
    10 answers