More specifically, were the likes of Churchill and Stalin worried about how Truman might conduct post-war talks with Germany, since they were given verbal assurances by FDR that Truman did not know about? Furthermore, were U.S. military leaders, such as Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz, worried about whether Truman would be able to stand up to the personalities of Stalin and Churchill, as well as decisively win the war with Japan?
I ask this because I've read some historical accounts that suggest that George Marshall was very skeptical about Truman's ability to make the "tough decisions" that were required to win the war against Japan. And also, the only two Vice Presidents to serve less time as VP before becoming President (Tyler and Johnson) are generally held in low regard by historians.
1 Answers 2020-02-22
Today:
AskHistorians is filled with questions seeking an answer. Saturday Spotlight is for answers seeking a question! It’s a place to post your original and in-depth investigation of a focused historical topic.
Posts here will be held to the same high standard as regular answers, and should mention sources or recommended reading. If you’d like to share shorter findings or discuss work in progress, Thursday Reading & Research or Friday Free-for-All are great places to do that.
So if you’re tired of waiting for someone to ask about how imperialism led to “Surfin’ Safari;” if you’ve given up hope of getting to share your complete history of the Bichon Frise in art and drama; this is your chance to shine!
1 Answers 2020-02-22
I've heard that wives might commit suicide as well, as the whole family name is dishonored. But did they also do seppuku or was it another method?
Also what happened to their children? If they were also killed, was it by the wife or the samurai, and was it also in a ritualistic manner?
1 Answers 2020-02-22
1 Answers 2020-02-22
It seems when you read stuff from the 16th century to mid 17th century, the moors are usually depicted as black. For instance, in the play ‘The English Moor’ written in 1640, there’s a scene where a female character dresses as a moor to disguise herself.
She actually stays in his house, in disguise: Quicksands dresses her up as a Moorish servant, with blackface make-up and a veil. When she complains about the "black painting", asking "Would you blot out / Heaven's workmanship?" he counters "Has heaven no part in Aegypt? Pray thee tell me, / Is not an Ethiopes face his workmanship / As well as the fairst Ladies?"
Of course, there’s also Othello who is often referred to as being a black moor.
However, by the time Robinson Crusoe was published in 1719, the moors are no longer described as black. Throughout Robinson Crusoe there’s a distinction made between ‘negroes’ and moors. Daniel Defoe never describes the people he refers to as moors as being black when his character is enslaved in Morocco. It’s only when his character sails to West Africa, he then gives a description of black people. And by the 19th century, the moors are firmly considered North African/Arab Muslims and not black in historical books like Moors in Spain (published in 1886). The historical book only mentions black people once in its account of moors in Spain and that’s only to say the sultan’s black guards were hated.
Popular feeling ran very high, not only against the Sultan, because he would not wear sackcloth and ashes or pretend to be an ascetic, but against his large body-guard of "Mutes," so called because, being negroes and the like, they could not speak Arabic.
So why were moors originally depicted as black in the 16th and 17th century? And why did this change in the 18th century?
Some people are saying that this is because all non-white skin was considered black. This is not true. When people in England said black in the 16th or 17th century, they very much meant black. The numerous travel accounts from the 17th century show this. For instance, Edward terry travelled to India in 1616 and gave a description of the people in India.
Now for the complexion of this people, they are all of them of a sad tawny or olive-colour; their hair black as a raven, very harsh, but not curl’d. They like not a man or woman that is very white or fair, because that (as they say) is the colour of lepers, common amongst them. - Race in early modern England by Jonathan Burton
In the 1640s, a Puritan gives a description of a black prostitute in London. He goes on to say that she wore a blonde wig (faire Hayre), but it would have done her better to try and and change her black skin then she might at least be brown (ware).
In the first Night’s Search in particular, Mill provides misogynistic and racist descriptions of the prostitutes whose presence he allegedly monitors and polices. The forty-eighth section, for instance, is a portrait of ‘a black impudent Slut that wore a dressing of faire hayre on her head’. ‘But couldst thou change thy skin’, he mocks in malicious tones, ‘then thou might’st passe / For current ware, though thou art nasty trash. Most of these depraved women, he is gratified to report, end up incarcerated in Bridewell. - Nightwalking by Matthew Beaumont
So yes, it seems people very much could distinguish between black skin and other skin colours like Brown, which they sometimes referred to as Tawny or olive colour or even ware.
3 Answers 2020-02-22
This might sound like a f*cked up question, I'm not asking if what they did was morally good or bad, because we all know it's bad
But on a justice point of view, did they break a lot of rules? I'm thinking the law of Geneva and the hague , but any other international laws of that time aswell
I have no clue what kind of rules their were, and I wanted to see if they broke a lot of rules. If they did, also prewar? Because couldn't outside forces prevent all of it?
1 Answers 2020-02-22
Foil-hat theories about pre-Columbian Chinese voyages aside, how long did it take this knowledge to spread?
I know Columbus’ letter was popular across Europe and most European societies were pretty up to date but what about the Ottomans? Theoretically there’s no reason for it to stall but seeing as the major cause of the age of discovery was the Ottomans preventing Eastward trade would they have been outside the loop?
What about in India and the Far-East? Did they typically find out when the first Portuguese traders arrive?
1 Answers 2020-02-22
After defeating Porus, there was that great exchange of words where Alexander asks Porus "How should I treat You?" And Porus replies "Treat me like a King treats another King". And then Alexander just says wow such a cool dude. guess I'll just leave this rich and prosperous land and go north where there's literally nothing.
This doesn't make sense.
2 Answers 2020-02-22
I think this is an important question and hope this is allowed here - so I will impose a more specific question. For example, if I am interested in learning more on George Washington, lets say I first read about him in my undergrad textbook, and secondly I read about him from a book I purchased off the shelf of my local book store.
What is the difference in the information I receive in both sources? Can I trust both sources equally? More importantly, are there any subjects in which the information will be more accurate from one source versus the other?
1 Answers 2020-02-22
1 Answers 2020-02-22
Anytime something involving the Wehrmacht gets posted on Reddit, whether it be a picture of dead Wehrmacht soldiers (the recent Fallschirmjager post) or just a cool photo of the war machines that were deployed on the battlefield, there is a huge argument that erupts between those who feel like it doesn't matter if they were Nazi party members or not, they are evil and deserve to be dead. Then there are others who say you have no idea who that soldier was and may have been a poor child conscripted into the military or a veteran of the Great War who is a career military man just doing his job.
Do historians view soldiers of the Wehrmacht just as guilty and evil as Nazi party members or SS troopers? Or are they viewed in a brighter light that they were simply military men who were somewhat strong armed into furthering the military goals of an insane leader who had authoritarian rule over the German nation?
1 Answers 2020-02-22
We’ve seen them all of historic figures like Marie Antoinette, king Henry VIII, queen Elizabeth I, etc. But why is it they all have been painted to look exaggerated in their features giving them almost an unattractive look when some of them have been known as being very beautiful
1 Answers 2020-02-22
Everyone needed it, population has never been higher but it needs to be carefully managed. How was it done? Was it done at all?
And how does someone in the middle of Florence get theirs? Is it sold? Is it expensive?
1 Answers 2020-02-22
1 Answers 2020-02-22
So many people died in the conflict and it is known that Treblinka was almost wiped off the map and in the records by the Nazis and almost went unnoticed. This camp exterminated about 1.6 million people and only had a handful of survivors. However, these handful of survivors wouldn't have known the total number. This is the same for other camps such as Auschwitz.
So how long did it take for people to count up the numbers?
Or a better way of phrasing this: how long did it take them to know the true number?
1 Answers 2020-02-21
Did Spartans really throw babies off cliffs for the slightest birth defects? If they didn’t, how was the rumor spread and who spread rumor?
1 Answers 2020-02-21
Most countries had submachine guns before WWII or were making them. Most of europe was producing them and America was supplying a lot. Why didn’t England produce one until they desperately needed one, where they were unprepared so they copied the MP28 for a quick British edition (Lanchester). Why didn’t they make their own?
1 Answers 2020-02-21
Hey y'all. First time poster. I am currently writing about whether the U.S. has a moral obligation to protect other countries, and if they do, does the U.S. do so in a moral, efficient manner.
I figured I'd look at the historical past of the U.S.'s response to calls of aid. In 1836, Lt. Col. William B. Travis asked for reinforcements from the Texian army, as well as the United States. My question is why did the United Stated not respond? This letter that Travis wrote was distributed not just in Texas, but across the U.S., and even Europe. So the leaders in Washington would have had to known. Independence is something they would have valued, and I would think the U.S. would be eager to support white Texans (who many were part of the colonies....or at least their parents were.....before they relocated to Texas) over the darker Mexicans. A lack of response just seems odd. Thanks y'all
1 Answers 2020-02-21
How much of history has been written by eye witness accounts. Just read the article and thought it was interesting.
1 Answers 2020-02-21
I don’t fully understand why the Crusaders (a highly Christian group) sacked the Christian empire of Byzantium. I understand there was some sort of financial issue but other than that I’m completely blind. And wish to know more
edit: cross posted this over from r/history
1 Answers 2020-02-21
I'm vaguely aware that there was a hierarchy in which barons were near the lower ranks and Dukes were generally second only to royalty, and that generally Dukes were among the wealthiest and most powerful Nobility. But what were the actual differences? Was a hierarchy strictly enforced or would any lord consider themselves social equals of the others? Were there legal distinctions regarding size or types of properties, or rights that they had within the realm?
I'm mostly interested specifically in France, Iberia, and the HRE in the aforementioned centuries, but info from any countries and other centuries is always appreciated.
1 Answers 2020-02-21
