i.e. Hans-Adolf von Moltke, André François-Poncet, Joseph Clark Grew, Kichisaburō Nomura, Józef Lipski, etc. etc.

(If any of these were already in their home nation during the declaration, please ignore them.)

One of the time periods I'm most interested in with American history is the 1950's and the sheer amount of conformity that society bred as a result of fear. Part of this conformity was that the role of women didn't change and they were still expected to be housewives despite their contributions in WWII. My question is, were women much more oppressed after WWII than before, or was the oppression they faced basically the same as always and things just sort of reached a boiling point?

As far as I understand, being a proper citizen of Rome gave you certain rights and privileges. Let's say I'm in trouble of some kind where my citizenship would be an advantage. How would I proove, or someone else check that?

I've been learning more about WW1 and getting more interested in it recently and I was wondering basically what was the point of it? I know how it started but I just don't really get what The Central Powers wanted of it. I get that in WW2 basically Hitler wanted world domination yet I just can't seem to get what The Central Powers wanted. I understand that the Entente wanted a safe world for democracy (as far as I know) but like I said I just don't get The Central Powers reason besides being angry that the prince of austria was assassinated by the serbian guy. So i was just wanting some closer on what the central powers wanted to accomplish.

Edit: Sorry if I seem repetitive, I'm intrigued a lot by WW1 and WW2 and this question has been bothering me for a while.

How exactly would warriors be able to be taken alive when both forces are using highly deadly weapons?

I hear people using the fact that the parties switched as an argument against/for some parties in some political arguments. I don't care about modern politics, but was it politics that caused the USA's Republican and Democratic parties to switch? How long did this transition take, and what time period was it?

[deleted]

What type of mental or physical issues did you have to have during WW2 to be considered unfit for service?

I've googled this and I saw a bunch of people commenting different stuff. Some say yes and some say no.

What I really want to know is about D-DAY. I've rewatched the movie "Saving Private Ryan" again after watched it first some years ago.

Yes, I know it's only a movie but it seems very accurate to me.

The scene that got me the most questions up were when the medics got shot at while helping a wounded soldier. The MG-42 still shoot at the medics (i think they were three.) Luckily , the bullets didnt hit them because there was a dead body taking all these bullets.

Now I wonder if this happend aswell in WW2. [EDIT: Meaning with WW2 is the real life, not the movie!] I know there is this Geneva Convention but I read online that some wrote not every respected it and still kept on shooting medics when they were unarmed and healing their wounded comrades.

Thanks and I hope someone can answer my question :)

Hello,

I am looking for primary sources about King Leonidas I of Sparta. These sources need to be textual and relevant surrounding his time as King and his death. Are there any sources I can get that aren’t from Herodotus’ The Histories?

In chapter 68 of his autobiography, Ulysses S. Grant argues that although the north was more populated, industrialized, and richer, the Confederates had major advantages over the Union.

His major points:

• The South was a police state that did not have to please its population, while northern politicians were very concerned about not making mistakes so they could get reelected. They routinely held back commanders to avoid the risk of defeat.
• Conscription in the South eventually took almost every free male from 14 and 60, giving it a huge army, with slaves, women, the young, and the elderly growing crops for them. It was a total-war style mobilization. On the other hand, life in the North mostly went on as normal, which vast parts of the population sustaining their normal activities, and only a part of the population serving in the army.
• Dissent in the south was squashed, and newspapers were made to tow the line. Part of the free press of the north supported the south. This caused many problems for the government.
• The south did not have to protect their rear, but were free to commit all troops to the front. Half the Union army was actually busy guarding supply lines and communications, not facing off against Southern Armies.

He writes: "Under such circumstances it is hard to conceive how the North showed such a superiority of force in every battle fought. I know they did not...I deem it safe to say that there were no large engagements where the National numbers compensated for the advantage of position and intrenchment occupied by the enemy."

Do historians buy Grant's arguments that the battle was pretty equal, or that thing might have even been tipped in the advantage of the South, and that the Union had a big uphill battle?

There have been cases of white people becoming parts of native tribes in the 18th century, however, I could not find anything after that. The best possible answer would address all races. Thank you!

Hey folks. I intend to run a roleplay campaign for a couple of friends. The setting would be in 1892 Tinajin under the Qing, the area of many great power struggles and mystery.

As a history student, I want this run to be as far historically accurate as possible. Alas, this is not really my area of expertise. So I would like to use your help with the following questions:

​

• When you walk the streets of Tianjin, what would you see?
• What would you hear?
• What would you smell?
• What would you eat?
• How different were the foreign privileges zones of the UK, France and Japan than the rest of the city?
• What would one find around the city?
• What is the level of poverty vs. richness of people?
• How ethnically and religiously diverse was the city?
• What was the level of crime? Were there significant organized crime? How corrupt are the authorities?
• Who were the de-jure rulers of the city? Who were the de-facto ones?
• What was the balance of power between the Emperor and the bureaucracy? What were their agendas?
• How religious were people? Did they adhere to ancient mythologies?
• How common were firearms?

In addition, any detail that you think would add "color" or accuracy to the game would make me very happy.

​

Thanks a lot in advance!

Most of the sources I’ve read basically say something like “Philip beat Athens and Thebes in a battle. Next he started the Hellenic league, and was made hegemon." How did he go about doing this? Why would all the other states agree to this? He didn’t defeat and control everyone. Surely, if they were going to unify, they would unify against the guy who was taking his armies all over Greece and fighting people? And why would they agree he should be in charge, if Macedon had a reputation as a backwater kind of pseudo Greek state?

Will they thoroughly deplete my food and/or gold storage to sustain the horde? If so, will my village starve or will it be relatively easy to recover? Will there be harsh taxes to pay from now on, or a relatively small amount? Will my prosperity from trade and whatever else under the Empire more than compensate for whatever negative drawbacks there will be?

Obviously the answer is "depends on the village," but I'm hoping for an average outlook or a "most likely" scenario.

How did the Red Cross get packages from Britain, America etc to Prison camps in France and Germany? Was it seen as a war crime to attack them or was it like they had a special sort of protection?

So we got all these stories about the Pacific war, different battles in Europe etc but what about Africa? I know there was a war fought over there. I know it was a relative clean one but can't find much information about it. Why is that? And what books are interesting to read about it? Kind of a cry for help here.