Did neither side ask them for help? Were they aware of what was going down? Did they give a shit?

The Manhattan project began in August 1942 and advanced to a successful test in July 1945, less than three years later at a relatively tame price of ~$25 billion in inflation adjusted terms.

The Soviet atomic bomb project began at about the same time, knew about the US successes, had spies who filled them in on much of the US detail and didn't manage a successful test until 1949. It took them longer to build a bomb after stealing the blue prints (4 years) than it took the Manhattan Project starting from scratch. Other countries have taken even longer to develop nuclear weapons.

The Manhattan Project is often held up (alongside the Apollo Program) as the pinnacle of scientific success and rightly so. The achievements are astonishing, so how did they manage it? Why did the Manhattan Project succeed so impressively and especially so quickly?

I heard it on a history matters video and I wanted to know why

7.62 cartridges far outnumber any other calibre.

7.62x39 is the most widely made cartridge in the world, with 7.62x51, 7.62x63, 7.62x25, and 7.62x54 also being massively widespread and used. Why is this the case? I'm aware that in the last half century there has been a move away from the 7.62 calibre towards smaller, faster, cartridges such as 5.56x45 and 5.45x39, but they still remain widely used.

I have some experience with guns, but I ask this question as more of a historical curiosity than a logistical one.

I would ask Forgotten Weapons, but I'm not a patreon.

I am reading a book on Middle East history and I found this whole thing a bit confusing. It states that the Babylonians would deport the conquered from their home countries but would frequently resettle them in Babylon. It seemed that they were accepted into larger Babylonian society and even could rise in the ranks.

What was the point of this?

Was it practiced by other countries around the same time?

Thank you so much for any and all information!

He was injured and helpless in the ground, then brutus comes up to him... ¿and stabs him there? ¿why didn't he stab him in the hearth or throat instead of letting him bleed to death? There was also backlash because of that wound later so. ¿why?

I've always been told that at the time Aids was a very hush hush or straight up ignored disease, but things turned around (somewhat) after such a public figure came out with it.

Also on a somewhat related note, did any kids later express regret or horror at what they had participated or done, like in JoJo Rabbit? Did any kids, again like in Jojo, love the parades and marching but were horrified at actually seeing Jews be killed?

this is more a question about history as a science. since history is a difficult science because we cant recreate or test history so to say. that is because history is about the past, its a construct of what we think what happend in the past. Our ideas of what happend in the past is based on historical sources. is there any authority when it comes to judging these sources? so is there a person or community of sorts when it comes to that?

Hello r/AskHistorians,

I am curious as for instance why don't maps have Japan, China, Asia, etc in the west and Europe in the east?

As a spheroid we could divide the world into an very large and practically infinite manner to display on a map, so why do we have as an international standard this classic map? Or is this not the case?

When this standard come about and why?

Given the population of China,m India, etc it seems Europe is centralised despite having relatively so few people compared to these massively densely populated?

Many thanks!

I ask this thinking that because black people were not considered people back then, wouldn’t the white master see this as putting an “animal” out of its misery and saving resources for enslaved persons who could work?

Asking for the American South, but also would love to hear from anyone with a background in any sort of slavery

Very weird question I know, but I think this is the only place on the internet where I might get some answers.

I never looked deeply into World War One as a conflict so this question's premise very well may be somewhat incorrect, but I never could figure out why Austrian armies did so mediocre in comparison to Germany despite usually fighting side by side with them against their main adversary (Russia). From the point of bystanding observer it almost looks like Germans had to redirect additional forces just to save their partner.

1914, battle of Galicia - complete Austrian defeat, Russian occupation of Galicia, Austrian losses are very heavy and exceed those suffered by Russians.

1915, Great Retreat - despite Russians having terrible leadership and lacking meaningful firepower, Austrian troops again suffer noticable casualties - bigger than those suffered by the Germans.

1916, Brusilov's offensive - offensive has great momentum at the beginning, forward Austrian forces are routed, but the Russian army is later stopped by Germans at Kowel.

Italy - Austrian forces hold Italy off pretty well but are later defeated and have to withdraw until Italian army gets defeated by Germans at Caporetto.

You can argue that these defeats happened due to Russian and Italian numerical superiority, but it didn't stop Germans from defeating Russians at Tannenberg and conducting successful offensives against both British and French while lacking in numbers.

What were contributing factors that led to AHE's combat performance? Or do I simply get my facts wrong?

Gold was a valuable possession anciently as it is today. However, it seems to be a universally coveted metal. Even cultures which had no contact with each other during their genesis (as far as we are aware) like the Incans and the Romans both valued gold and used it to make beautiful works of art and as a display of wealth, or as currency.

Why was gold so universally valued? Were there any cultures that valued another precious metal like copper or silver more than gold?

I.e., insurance policies, tax breaks, medical help etc.

I'm playing assassin's Creed Odyssey, which takes place in Greece between 431 and 429 B.C. Your character starts on Kephallonia, and at some point you can cross the channel to the island of Ithaca to visit Odysseus's palace. I know the palace probably wouldn't exist in that state 7-800 years after the Trojan War, but the entire island aside from that was abandoned. To my knowledge, Ithaca would have had to have one thriving city at least in order to send the (12?) ships to reclaim Helen. So where is everybody? Was the entire island abandoned between the Trojan War and Peloponnesian War?