I heard that Poland cracked enigma and offered it to the ally’s as part of the deal for protecting Poland, but then I’ve heard way later on in the war, the British forced a German sub to surface and before it sank they went inside. Inside it they found an intact German code book and enigma machine, so they began regularly reading enigma coded transmissions. These story’s seem to contradict and I’m wondering which one is true or if I’m missing something?

The reason for radical Islam in Europe, especially in France, is often blamed on the colonial period. I do not deny that there were atrocities, oppression and persecution. My question is whether the same was done by the Muslim world at some point in history, or whether history is really one-sided.

I want to stress that I am not for one side or the other. I ask out of personal interest, as the subject of colionalism and radical Islam is often taken up in the Reddit comments, often answered with "The children should not be punished for the sins of the parents", but are there no historical events that refute this one-sided view.

How much did the cannons destroy?

An old war hero, seizing power in a quasi coup d'etat and then asking for untethered power. It sounds very similar to the rises to power of both Marshal Petain and also Napolean. Therefore my question really is, why is he such a hero in France? Were the French people not nervous that he'd become a dictator like those before him? Why was there so much trust in him, a man who was hated by the Americans and disliked by Churchill?

I'm trying to find some accurate and detailed books/articles about norse history and culture. I've heard a lot of good things about The Viking Way by Neil Price but I'm afraid it might be out of date (it was published in 2002). I would be interested in stuff that focuses on archeology as well as history.

Manuela Saenz had been suspecting for some time that there was conspirators willing to end Bolivars life and allegedly intentionally dressed as a man in order to create such a scene that Bolivar would feel too embarrassed to stay, saving him from his would be assassins.

Hearing that piece of trivia made me wonder why this rule was there in the first place (specifically, the prohibition of men dressing as women, and women dressing as men). And on the same topic, did people commonly dress in clothes for the opposite sex at such balls, and if so from where did this phenomenon come from and when did it cease to be acceptable?

Thanks!

IMPORTANT NOTES, PLEASE READ BEFORE ANSWERING!

First of all, a disclaimer since considering the question, it's obviously needed : know that I am well aware of what this question possibly implies (notably soapboxing) but I want to nuance these implications and also clarify that I do not want to offend anyone: I am not here to say that professional historians / academics do bad work or intentionally inserts their bias to promote a narrative, the interests of a community or theirs.

I'm also well aware that as an amateur, I shouldn't technically be doing this kind of post that ultimately judges circles when I'm not in a position to do so, but that doesn't mean I'm doing it out of contempt.

This post as its origins from a simple feeling after having read works on related topics, yes I have the impression that there is a double standard (whether real or not) concerning European history and its external interactions &/or comparisons (whether, obviously, at the advantage of Europeans, but also at their disadvantage, which in both ways can be prejudicial), as I said however, I don't think it's on purpose, but rather, due to involuntary biases, consequence of multiple factors more or less rooted in our past.

From the cultural relativity/cultural universality dichotomy, to the emotional impact our past can have on us (guilt, grudge, etc...) passing in the process around narratives & concepts possibly fallacious but that are acknowledged as norms; I think this problematic web provokes a vicious circle which is not always easy to identify and which, in this fascinating but enormous melting pot that is the treatment of global history, has still today an effect possibly much more important than one could think.

This is why, although I, as a European myself, know I'm very badly placed to ask, still take the risk, because I want the topic to be at least discussed, even if it's to dismiss the premise. Also, while the question might be more relevant for its sociological aspect, it does concern historians, so asking it on this sub has its importance.

So basically, this is not an arrogant question to prove my superiority (what you can be sure of, is that it's not the point I want to make), but one out of curiosity & confusion due to possibly my beliefs (& biases of course) but that I still consider legit, not because I'm superior but because I nonetheless consider that all humans are not infallible & that all opinions can be reviewed as long as it's in mutual respect (or at least, attempted to be).

Now, if this text still don't prove my sincerity for you, it's fine, but at least explain with the rules of the sub in mind & don't try to sanction me for this post, as clumsy can it be...

Thanks in advance for answering.

(Yes, I've read all the rules & this post is allowed)

I was listening to a podcast on the history of Japan (hence all the questions about Japanese history recently) and there was a brief discussion about a Japanologist staying at a ryokan in Kyoto. The very old inn advertised itself as having been in the family for over a thousand years, but the old woman who ran the business confessed to the professor that there was a slight lie in their story, that actually the ryokan wasn't truly the original thousand-year-old ryokan, and had burned down during the Onin War.

This got me to thinking, what kind of people patronized ryokan in pre-modern times? Hotels are usually things I think of as more modern 20th Century creations, with the growth of GDP, tourism as an industry, and modern lifestyles. I'm familiar with guest houses that catered to pilgrims in Medieval Europe (Chaucer's magnum opus begins in one of them, for example) but I'm curious as to what kind of clientele a ryokan at the time of the Onin War, or basically any time before TripAdvisor or AirBnB.

For Dutch ships to enter the Atlantic, they must enter the straits of Calais, which is basically the Gibraltar of the North Sea. France or Britain can easily block access to the strait.

Despite that, how did it become a major maritime power?

And why were they the only ones that succeeded. Why didn't the Swedish or Danish have a great maritime empire?

I do wonder if it is ONE if the reasons why Hideyoshi never seized the title for himself

Are there archives of telegrams or transmissions between Turkey and the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis? What was the Turkish point of view on JFK negotiating pulling out the Jupiter Missiles in exchange for the USSR pulling out their missiles in Cuba?

How do I learn about historical cartographic practices? I’m interested in maps and cartography, but I don’t know much about the actual processes by which maps have been made historically. I’ve tried to do some research, but all the scholarship I find is about specific maps, not a more general look at cartographic practices in different times in history, which is what I’m really wanting.

This is inspired by ASOIAF which has events which are drawn from real history. Did any of the Roman Nobility survive the fall of Rome and become the ruling royal houses of early European kingdoms? Or were they all wiped out? Would prefer to know if any of them survived outside of Italy itself.

How common would it have been to ask in residents to have to share the same bed with an stranger? Edit: it’s set in Arkansas actually my bad

I'm rather just curious because it seems like it is practiced less overall in society.

In the movie Django Unchained (I know this isn't the movie to watch for historic accuracy), the antagonist loved to have "fighters", big strongs slaves that could fight for their entertainment, and for money in gambles.

Did those things really happen? Where slaves forced to fight to death a "common" thing?
(If there are lectures, writings, books or documents in general you could provide, that would be very appreciated)

In any of the beach landings, but especially Normandy, wouldn’t the machine gun nests be less effective if the landing parties had a smoke screen. Give the guys a chance!

How did the US military compare to the major world powers of the mid 19th century?

I have been writing a lot about the twenties and thirties recently. And a penny just dropped in my head that on the eve of ww2 there was just 20 years since the last war. I know that is painfully obvious. But I had always considered that a long time.

Now when I consider how much modern commentary and analysis still harks back to events 20 years ago and how for myself 20 years ago now feels like yesterday. How do historians best deal with... Relative time dilation? 20 years is either a moderately long time, or no time at all dependant on your age. How does is it effect historical judgement? Do younger historians come to different conclusions to when they are older (given hypothetically the same sources)

For example, one of the arguments I regularly see is criticism of Britian spending approximately 4 years between warnings of increased threats from Japan to doing anything about it. Yet in 4 years I still have the same pants in my draw and probably the same spices in my cupboard. We still have no progress on brexit or any other thing that happened 4 years ago. Criticism feels unfair. But if I was 21 it would be intolerable

I am reading a book that made this claim about Ben Franklin but I’m not really sure if it is a true claim or not.

The author mentioned that when Ben Franklin sailed to France, he started attending official parties. But instead of focusing of men, he focused on women (their wives) . He was charming with the ladies until he won their heart and trust. Then eventually that lead him to secure the funds needed for the US.

Was that really his strategy? I mean to focus on women to affect men indirectly. Or it is a false claim from the author.