Are there any highly regarded biographies on him?

I was curious about this because of the part in bold:

In the 1930s and 40s, a young, politically precocious Noam Chomsky was much affected by the Great Depression and the slow, seemingly inexorable slide toward world war. The jingoism, racism and brutality unleashed on all sides were appalling, but it seemed to him from his home in Philadelphia that America had reserved a special level of animosity for the Japanese. When Washington ended a campaign of mass civilian slaughter from the air with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in the summer of 1945, the 16-year-old, deeply alienated by the celebrations around him, walked off into the local woods to mourn alone. “I could never talk to anyone about it and never understood anyone’s reaction,” he said. “I felt completely isolated.”

But this made me wonder what the reaction was across the entire United States. After all, Chomsky only offers an account of what happened at his summer-camp ("Camp Massad"), but the country is a big place with millions of people. I'm curious about the US population's reactions to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How many celebrated? How many were neutral? How many "mourned?"

We all know what happened when Europeans settled the Americas. The population predominantly became European.

I have been reading old National Geographics and it was noted that in similar time periods immigration/settlements were attempted to Africa. Its quite a contrast how Africa is... still African. The only existing European colony of note is South Africa, which even at its peak was only 20% European. Many other settlements just failed

That is such a massive contrast between the two. I have read the reason for failed settlements in Africa were due to an almost complete lack of good ports and disease. The lack of sheltered ports meant that landing cargo was quite dangerous and loss of life was not unusual. Europeans also lacked immunity against many African micro-organisms.

The immunity angle seems to make a lot of sense as this seems to be the main reason for native depopulating the Americas but I don't know. I would love to learn more about this

I've become extremely interested in the 20 year rule, its origins, and reasons for the time frame behind it & existing. I hear about it more and more on history related YouTube videos and subreddits, and I've become surprised that some things like that 9/11 doesn't qualify under the rule (although it will be in about a year and a half).

Romans were well known for their sewage system and famous for their use of aqueducts to transfer spring water from the mountains to their cities to provide clean drinking water. I know that they used lead pipes to transfer their water underground for people to drink. Now a days we know using lead pipes can be extremely dangerous and dramatically increases the chance of getting lead poisoning by drinking the water carried by lead pipes.

Was lead poisoning something the Romans knew about and how did it affect the people in these cities?

In many documentaries about Vietnam we always hear talk of American troops spraying wildly into the jungle and wasting ammunition. This is then usually cited as the reason for why the M16A2 had no fully auto function and instead incorporated a 3 round burst. Are there any actual military documents/statements that support this though, or is this simply a rumor that has been reiterated over and over untill people have believed it to be true?

It seems fairly common on here that people ask questions regarding armies of foot soldiers clashing, often coming in with the misconception that it was the sort of wild, brutal, charging melee depicted in films; when in reality it was likely (based on records of multi-hour battles with relatively light casualties, as well as study and experiment by modern enthusiasts) that it was much less messy.

In addition, everyone knows about the lance-charge and the devastating effect cavalry could have on infantry.

However, there are also many records of battles in which cavalry fighting cavalry, both in pre-modern and modern (18th, 19th century, etc) eras, for comparable lengths of time as the infantry; not to mention cavalry charging infantry and seemingly remaining "stuck in" after the charge. Certainly if the enemy is scattered, a horseman has a huge advantage; but how would a formation of riders handle a formation of footmen which didn't break on the initial contact?

What is known about how these engagements were handled? Did cavalry combat devolve into wanton swords-swinging, as a film might depict? Did it become a more ordered, shield-wall-esque affair? Was it something else entirely?

I'm writing a script that takes place in 1941 and there's a bomb in it. I'm wondering what the bombs were like then, how did you set them off? At the end of the story there's a bomb they have to defuse so I'd like to know how bombs worked then to figure out how the climax should end. Thanks!

Title, really. Other posts on the subreddit have looked at the formation of the myth itself, but this question focuses on the disparity between historical academia and popular culture.

There usually is a gap between the two, but it has been about 40 years since academia conclusively called the notion of the 'Clean Wehrmacht' a myth (I don't have sources on my right now for this, but I'd be happy to put them up tomorrow morning if asked), which to me is far longer than any reasonable gap between academic and public discourse without outside influence.

(If you aren't really aware of the CW myth in popular culture, I'm rather surprised, but it's in a lot of modern entertainment, games, and just general sentiment of when talking to people - at least in the West)

So, why the disparity between the two?

Most of todays' popular music is based on 4 bars, classical music, some jazz, and others follow their own structure.

Before the advent of the 4 bar concept, what did non classical music look like ?

So I know the answer to what helped kick the British butt in the American Revolution , is French and spanish involvement in the war after Saratoga. I also know ben Franklin ,when he wasn’t flying kites or seducing woman, was critical in getting the french people and monarchy to support the Americans against the British. My question was , how did Franklin do this ? Who did he have to talk to ? Did he have to grease any wheels ? Any deals ? What made the French people and monarch look at America and say “yep we are with y’all.”

Question occured to me while watching Pirates of the Caribbean in which they use both. Obviously that‘s not a reputable historical source but now I can‘t help wondering when we gave up on sword fighting completely.

I'm watching a show about an aristocratic family in Britain in the early 1900s, and the show mentions the family's "house librarian". I'd never heard of the role, and I haven't been able to find any other references to the position. Was it a common thing for wealthy British families to have a dedicated librarian for their country house or is the reference anachronistic? If there really was such a role, what would the daily life of a "house librarian" consist of?

Hi guys!

I got asked this question about IT history and couldn't find answer to it on the Internet so I hope you guys can help me with it. Also I'm looking for one more information to this question "Who did this?".

Thank you.

The Inca empire had a huge territory and they built a lot of great works so it took a lot of people to build them. Most other great works that existed in ancient and medieval times were built from slaves however there are very few records of slavery in the Inca empire . Did slavery exist in the Inca empire ? If they had. Is there any reputable source about it?

In ancient times the Romans built an empire off the backs of thousands of slaves. In colonial times, slaves made up a huge portion of the new world's population and they were a key part of the colonial economy. During the middle ages however, it seems to me that peasants constituted the bottom of the social pyramid. Is this the case? If so why did slavery go from being widespread to absent to widespread again? Could it stem from religious or social changes?

Under the feudal system, the people occupying the land were considered property of the feudal lord and as such had to obey their ruler.

But what choices one had to pursue independence? And I don't mean joining the clergy or becoming an outlaw.

What could someone do to become independent, break free from serfdom and acquire social status?

Struggling to find any sources to be honest and need to show the change in opnion over time.

I am aware local customs, practices, and beliefs likely varied from town to town but I was curious as to whether it was a belief at large in pre-Christian Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Eastern coast of Britain.

Did they believe their deities required appeasement of some sort, kind of the Aztec and the 5th Sun? Or that to receive the respective blessings of their deities they had to give offerings first?

Or was it more prevalent to give offerings in thanks for blessings already received?