From everything I can find, everyone who could distance themselves from the decision making process that culminated in the burning of Dresden did so when the news reported the resulting carnage and death toll estimates. This doesn't surprise me given Dresden's relative lack of military targets, making it all the more obvious that the attack was directed primarily towards civilians. So who was it that actually made the decision to commence the attack? Did any Americans take part in the mission, or was it solely RAF bombers/pilots? Who all knew about, and eventually capitulated to, the plan? Were there any repercussions (court-marshaling, lost rank, etc)?

My grandfather was a WWII B-17 bomber pilot who was shot down on his 13th mission. While he didn't take part in the actual mission to bomb Dresden, he was sick about the fact that the Allied forces would ever do something like that. I'm wondering how something like that ever even happened given that Allied forces were vehemently opposed to indiscriminate killing of civilians, and were at least somewhat clearly winning the war by that point as well.

E.G, Casablanca came out in 1942. Would it have been forgotten in 1952 or 1962? Or if somebody thought about it, would there be basically no way they could see it? Was there no concept of movies being classics in the same way as books?

(I did do a search and saw that someone asked a similar question a few years ago, but the answer only touched on music and wasn't hugely specific, so was hoping for a more in-depth one)

I mean after the ban on pagan religions imposed by Christians in the Roman Empire

EDIT: Upon further thought, I realized that the Edo period began only a few decades after matchlocks were introduced to Japan. Since the country was unified and isolated, armor became mostly ceremonial and was used to display wealth and nobility rather than for actual usage in combat, meaning that there was no real need to develop protective gear against bullets.

Was that the case, or is my guess wrong?

I know that this question is probably really dumb, but i’ve always wondered how people painted fonts on store windows before they had computers or decals. Did they have a template or a guide to look at while painting?

I'm teaching an advanced grade 7 student who wants to learn about World War 1. She can comfortably read at a grade 9 level and I would like to give her something informative but challenging to read.

Any suggestions??

As in, among NATO or NATO-aligned nations? Finland of course has had Soviet/Russian military equipment for ages and Israel at one point took whatever they could get their hands on but those are special cases.

I am meaning countries like France, the UK, the other Nordic countries, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Did they ever contemplate things like, for example, the Mi 26 heavy lift helicopter as an alternative to the Chinook or Sea King? Or did any consider MiG/Sukhoi fighter jets as opposed to Dassault/Boeing/Lockheed/BAE(its forebears)? Or the T72 tank? Or the NSV machine gun? Anything the Soviets/Yugoslavs had that had a western equivalent?

From what I know, the first churches (that ultimately ended up assimilating into the Catholic and Orthodox churches) sorted through all the early writings to establish canonical works. During that time, did they read each separate work as discrete books or were they already compiled together?

If I were a Christian in Ancient Rome training to be a priest in the 4th Century AD, would I be reading the gospel of Mark in its own separate book or would I be more likely to find it in a compilation along with other canonical works? When was the practice of compiling ALL canonical texts into a single Bible developed? When did it become the norm?

My grandfather is a retired Lt. Colonel and he is very into militarism and various world leaders.

I'm well versed in the late sengoku era and military detailings of it. But that's over many sessions with a book in hand.

Does anyone know a single book that would be able to detail a good amount of strategy and undergoing of a daily life in the period.

I'm most specifically looking for a book on Nobunaga and Ieyasu.

Thanks!

Besides the fact that they were great horsemen and bowmen. What gave them the desire to conquer the world? Was it merely Genghis Khan's personal aspirations? Or was it to finally be able to rule over China? Any answers would be greatly appreciated.

I mean, 300ml vs 30ml, such economic and military power difference of these countries that share mutual border...And yet, somehow, Canada is bigger...wtf? How did Canada manage to keep such landmass (the second largest country in the world after Russia) while being really weak militarily? I don't understand. How come US didn't attack and defeat Canada to take the land and resources?

​

P.S. - genuinely curious, I love Canada as a country, was just wondering about this question, no ill will intended.

My understanding of the Watergate scandal is that the only thing that directly tied Nixon was the "smoking gun" tape. And from what I understand the tape only revealed Nixon talking about controlling the FBI to stop the Watergate investigation. Was that really the biggest piece of evidence tying it all together?

I hope this isn't too political for this subreddit. Obviously, I'm asking this because of the current impeachment defenses of the President often include that there isn't enough "direct" evidence.

So, how hard was leaving USSR without being part of the party or being in a mission or something like that? Even if a soviet person was allowed to apply for a leaving permit, what was the chances of them getting one?

Even as a Brit I have to be impressed by George Washington, with his tactical brilliance and strong moral standing. But he existed in a time before left and right wing were even coined as terms. By contemporary or modern standards, where on the spectrums of politi al ideology did/does/would he stand?

In Robert G. Holyland's Arabia and the Arabs, various historical sources are mentioned that tell us pre-Islamic Arabian culture was one in which women could marry multiple men, advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the right to dismiss their husbands when they wanted, enjoyed significant financial independence, with Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages, female gods, and queens.

The Qur'an partially mentions some of this (like the female gods, decrying them) and urges Muslim women not to emulate the women of the time of ignorance in their bedizenment, with the Tafsirs pointing out to pre-Islamic Arabian women dressing in a skimpy manner and without modesty. How come that Islam, which developed against this backdrop, came to be such a puritanical religion in which any sexual or romantic affection before marriage is heavily frowned upon, and in which women have to cover themselves partially or fully almost all the time?