As an American, I've been fed the narrative that the atomic bomb is what drove the Japanese to the negotiating table for surrender. As of recent, I've been reading that the Russians entering the war, played a more pivotal role then the atomic bomb. Would love some education and clarity in this matter.

Thank you and I apologize if this question is already been asked on the subreddit.

Also how well known were family members to each other. Obviously outside of the immediate family i'n guessing after generations Kings would have hundreds of cousins from various royal uncles and aunts so how would they keep track of everyone? Would their be royal family gatherings with everyone in attendance?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I just finished the Dan Carlin series on WWI called "Blueprint for Armageddon". I came away with a question though. Why is it that it seems like none of the large second world war battles had anywhere near the casualties of the first world war (minus stallingrad). Yet WW2 had a much higher body count overall. I'm curious to see how this happens.

I know that other WW1 nation's like France had difficulty finding enough men to maintain their massive armies, mainly France, how was Nazi Germany able to field such a large army in such a short period of time after the devasting loss of men in the first world war?

So apparently he was a real guy who lived 1400 years ago. But who was he really? What theories do we have currently and what historical evidence is it based on?

Perhaps a genius piggy-backing off the religious doctrines and prophets before him for political dominance? Perhaps he truly did believe he was the messenger suggesting serious delusion and mental health imbalances. Perhaps a bit of both? Something else entirely?

This is something confusing that is me about Richard I's reign. He fought seemingly constantly with Philip of France about the Vexin, Normandy, etc etc. But here's the thing: it wasn't truly Richard's, as he had to do homage to the French king in order to be the Duke of these areas. The French king could take it away if he wanted to, could he not? Also, why did the Plantagenets not truly conquer these areas in France they coveted so much, so that they were part of English holdings and not something the king was a vassal for?

I have been told by multiple professors (particularly religious studies) that one of the reasons it was so easy to incite blame against the Jews for the bubonic plague was because the jewish population suffered less casualties than the general population, and that this was due to the religious requirements of always washing hands before eating, regular bathing, and not touching food or drink handled by a non-jew, which placed them in a better position to avoid contacting the plague in the first place. However, I have been unable to find any sources that indicate the Jewish population was any less decimated by the plague. Is there any truth to this idea?

​

I'm from the same place where the Portuguese first landed, the region hasn't changed much, the majority is still native population, language, culture...,

The contact with the native Americans lead to them being nearly wiped out, them becoming the minority to a European majority population.

I believe the Mongol didn't get much further into Europe than Hungary and I think they took some of the middle East but I'm not sure. Just curious as to what was happening in western Europe and the Mediterranean as a whole, kings wars etc, around the same time?

The year before I had a teacher (my junior year teacher) who would even mention Howard Zinn, our sophomore US History teacher presented various arguments to us for the US to use the atomic bomb at the end of WWII. I think most of the class liked the one of it being a way to avoid a “costly invasion of Japan” and that they were prepared to “fight to the end”.

I personally remember seeing the argument for strong positioning for influence of the pacific region vs the Soviets as the most compelling possible motive.

I know this can be a contentious topic but is there any consensus among academics on the motive? What was going through Truman’s mind at the decision to drop the first, and the decision to drop the second? How did the other Allies feel about this decision? Was there a Soviet or British response?

Examples include Japan, Korea, Tibet, Mongolia, Vietnam, Dali etc.

Asking for a project. Cant seem to find it

[deleted]

In Mohammed and Charlemagne (1937), Belgian historian Henri Pirenne argues that Antiquity lasted longer than previously thought, notably because the roman trade network throughout the Mediterranean continued long after the fall of the Western Empire and was used by the Germanic kingdoms, and really ended with the Arabian conquests and dominance in trade and piracy from the 7th Century onward. Is this thesis commonly accepted today? I know labels are not perfect and naturally it was more of a transition than a fracture, but did Antiquity actually ended in the early 7th Century, rather than the traditionnal 476 date?