So i read this book "D-day through the German eyes". It's composed of very engaging and intense descriptions from the German veteran's point of view about what happened on various beaches on D-day. I came across this account by a German machine gunner in one of the bunkers overlooking Omaha.

He said that at first there was a dropping of bombs from Allies aircraft that missed them completely. Then that was followed by artillery of the invasion fleets. This time they were more accurate. And although the Germans were somewhat safe in their pillbox bunkers, the constant barrage of artillery shells from the gunships was deafening and constant. There was not a second pause between each explosion. It drove his fellow soldiers crazy. Some were weeping and screaming and trying to flee and was shot by their superior officers. They were going crazy and were giving up. Their moral was already weakened. And then the shelling stopped and the little boats carrying troops started to come in. He said later in an interview that he didn't understand why it wasn't a prolonged shelling.

I'm not saying that the American should keep shelling the German as they were inserting their troops in. No. That's stupid. What i'm saying is, or rather asking... what's the hurry? Why not an hour of shelling before insertion, so that the beach is clear, both of the Germans and obstacles? That way you'll get a easy foothold. And It's not like it was your first rodeo? You've beachheaded the Japanese for years using this tactics. Why the sudden change in M. O? Of course, the German would reinforce some distance behind the beach and would be ready to drive the Americans back. But hey, they would still do it regardless.

Over confidence? the Americans didn't see the German pillboxes from their ships? That's how we do it in America? Please, enlighten me.

It seems like a waste of vital military resources

Marcus Licinius Crassus was known as the richest man in Rome, and used his money to become one of the most powerful men in Roman politics. Who would have inherited his property after he died? The Wikiped does have short articles on his surviving son and grandson, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of the wealth they inherited or how they used it. Would it all have gone to them under Roman law, and if so, why were they comparatively minor players in the politics of their era?

I'm curious as to the history of recordkeeping in relation to births, and when exactly birth records became a standard practice (and a means to document citizenship)

I had Italy in mind in particular, but any information about this practice in the US/other European countries is greatly appreciated!

I find this interesting and I was discussing it on a language learning subreddit because we were discussing language origins and how they evolved. I speak tamil and was once speaking to my grandfather in it at the Seoul Airport when once of the security guards said that I speak very good Korean. Initially I thought this was just funny and a coincidence, but I was surprised to see that there are numerous words which are similar or identical between the two languages, including the words for I, Mom, Dad, Grass, Fight, etc.

I can’t rule out that this is coincidence, and upon some reading (the wikipedia article for the Dravidian-Korean language theory, lol), it seems like people have noted and proposed similarities but no historical link exists to justify the theory’s accuracy.

So are these similarities simply coincidental, or is there some historical link between Dravidian India and Korea that exists? Moreover, if the link does exist, why and how did these languages develop similarly? If it doesn’t, why do they have this much coincidence?

I’m reading a memoir about a man who grew up in the GDR (Red Love by Maxim Leo) and I’ve found myself becoming more and more interested in the GDR as a state and what it was like. I’m an American, so my education on the subject is probably a little biased, but I feel pretty confident in the knowledge that there were horrendous human rights breaches committed by the government and an astoundingly high level of surveillance on innocent citizens. However, I’m curious how anyone who knows about the subject or ideally has lived in East Germany before the wall fell would describe what the benefits of the GDR government were. I guess I’m curious about an ideally unbiased “man on the street” view of what benefits the government seemed to offer over capitalist or traditionally democratic governments. Was homelessness really lessened or eliminated? Unemployment? Was any aspect of economic life easier for people, and why?

Despite having a high position and high competence, Georgi Zhukov survived Stalinism.

Was he ruthless and lacking in morals like Stalin, or was he just smart enough to know what to hide? Did he think Stalin was a good leader?

Was he an officer and a gentleman with a commitment to civilian rule, or was he the kind of man who would make himself dictator-for-life if given the opportunity?

I’m thinking 13 colonies, but I’ll take a broader range of North American colonies. Was there an acknowledgement of eating disorders—not by name, obviously, but “oh Sally throws up after every meal”? If so, was there a class difference?

While reading a biography of John Adams I came across a passage that stated that, at the outbreak of the War of Independence in 1775, the American colonies had no native arms industry, meaning no infrastructure to produce muskets, cannon, or even gunpowder. Is this true, and if so, where did the Continental Army get their weapons and munitions from? How well armed were the American colonists in general at the outbreak of the war? Would the average person have owned a firearm? And since the individual states were notoriously unwilling to supply Washington with anything and I can't imagine them happily opening their arsenals to the Continentals, how was the Army able to obtain the guns and ammo to actually keep fighting?

Title says it all.

John Hunyadi was a famous and wealthy General, a vehement anti Ottoman crusader, and rival to Mehmed from the Sultans younger years.

Why was the so called Champion of Christ absent in the defense of Constantinople only to fight against Mehmed at Belgrade just a few years later?

As far as I know, even the existence of steam engines at that time is debated, yet a fellow reddit user claimed that the Greeks used them in sex toys (knowing the Greeks, that’s not impossible) does anyone know more?

Did many families in hiding get discovered due to children not being able to be silent? I refer to those like the franks hidden in secret lofts rooms and cellars.

A bit morbid I know but playing hide and seek with my young lad made me think, in WW2 when the nazis were actively hunting Jewish and minority families, were any that were in hiding spots such as false floors and attics discovered because younger members gave them away?

There is no enough information about grave of Konstantinos Paleologos. There are sources but all of them aren't enough to get exact answer.

I've seen some articles which proves that Jesus wasn't exist. What are proofs of Jesus's life?

I'm currently doing research on war between Dutch's East Indies vs Aceh Sultanate on 1873 till its defeat, Sadly I ran out of data on my own country, some which may due to 2006 aceh tsunami wipe out most of the data...

Is there any records from Turkey, Portuguese, English, or Netherlands that may contain some information about Aceh's power, be it diplomatically or military, or anything else...

Thank you so much

edit: i can´t write

Like who was the first guy to “deny” the holocaust

What was the first book just when/where did it come from

I watched a documentary that implied that pre-1941 Blitzkrieg was as successful as it was due to the fact that German soldiers did not sleep and were basically tweekers with guns and tanks. Is this true?

During the 30's the Soviet leadership was panicked about a possible war with Germany and they proposed a collective security agreement with Britain and France, which was refused. Since the European powers saw communism as a primary domestic and international threat during the interwar period (Lloyd George and some other political figures saw Hitler as a bulwark against Russia), wouldn't they have let Germany go to war with Russia without interference?

Axis leaders would have known about the Allies' willingness to look the other way when they took military action against a common pest since they didn't object to Germany/Italy's violation of the non-intervention treaty in Spain.

Secondly, if France and Britain had signed a collective security agreement with the Soviet Union, would that possibly have lessened the destructiveness of the whole conflict, since it would have drawn the Soviets into the war a lot earlier?