The image of the Northern carpet bagger traveling through the hinterlands of the American South selling junk and ripping off residents is pretty well established. But how much of this image is based on history and how much is based on bigotry and myth?

I was doing research on European history and I heard about this fact. I tried to find unbiased sources, but all war opinionated. Can anyone help?

When i re-watch old movies from the 1940's and 50's, i'm struck by the difference in the leading men's physiques. Supposed tough guys are much older than today's heroes, and considerably less well-muscled. i look at message boards and videos of weight lifters and body builders, and they're constantly talking about carb- and protein-loading, taking creatine, and applying the scientific method to body-building so they can get the most impressive gains possible.

Did people training gladiators in the ancient Roman era have all this knowledge? Did they know that eating protein creates larger muscles? Was the right kind of food even available to help them buff up? Were gladiators actually ripped, muscular monsters, or would we look at them through the lens of history and laugh?

Nowadays, everyone is compared to Hitler.

But back then, was Hitler compared to someone who lived before him ?

At the climax of Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird", set in the early 1930s, Atticus Finch equates a "stupid man" to "an Einstein" in order to emphasize to the jury, in his closing arguments, the impartiality of an American court of law. How well would this comparison have been taken by the jury and the spectating public? Today, calling somebody "Einstein" is synonymous with "genius". I had always assumed that Einstein gained widespread national recognition in the US for his work on the atomic bomb. Was Einstein already a well-known public figure by then?

From 1840-1850 at least five different people tried to kill Queen Victoria - 4 by shooting, and the final by clubbing her over the head. Certainly any monarch or leader who rules for as long as her is going to experience a few such attempts by the usual deranged individuals, but this seems like an unusual confluence of murderousness. Has there been any investigation or insight on what might have motivated this dramatic series of attacks? Did a similar series of attacks affect other monarchs in Europe at the time? Was it actually unusual, or just better reported than others?

I'm wondering if anyone has any book recommendations for understanding the WW2 Pacific Theatre as a whole from start to finish in preferably less than 1500 pages. Any help would be appreciated.

Can we even refer to the facts or events of the past as the knowledge?

Is there established truth in history?

I know that Mexico sent some 1000+ troops to the Republicans, as well as volunteers in the Español Batallón, but I'm curious as to the particulars, like where they fought, whether they joined the POUM, FAI, or the Popular Front. Any specific names would be helpful as well.

Edit: love, not life

My Dad follows this facebook page called "We are Mighty" & they posted this article on there about "Project Retro", a plan by the U.S to stop the Earth's rotation with rockets to throw Russian missiles off course during the Cold War. We all know how facebook can be about facts, (in a whisper) facebook doesn't have a very good reputation, & I wanted to ask people that really know.

[deleted]

What was Japan's negotiating position after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but before Nagasaki?

What sort of conditional surrender did they offer, and how did it change after the first atomic bomb was dropped?

It's always confused me. Why are there these tiny little nations in North America that are called "Latin America"?. They are all Spanish, and linguistically speaking they all speak Spanish. Why do these specific nations exist, and why are they not part of Mexico? I don't know much about the history of New Spain & Spain's colonization, but all I do know is that Mexico got independence from Spain. Were these Latin American states part of Mexico and broke free or were they a separate colonial region? I'm honestly interested as to why Latin America is what it is, and not part of Mexico or Colombia or some unified nation.

It seems that after the original "yellow journalism" of the late 1890s, Americans began to demand more factual, neutral news. What caused the change and do you think it could be used again to slow down the click-bait version of news that happens today?

Also, perhaps this is too simple of a question, but what is the difference between what a historian does to past events and what a journalist does to current events? It seems to me like we could use some "presentorians" that work the historical method on current events. Does something like that exist?

P-51 had 6 x .50 cal

P-40 had 6 x .50 cal

P-47 had 8x .50 cal

F4F had: 4 × .50 cal

F6F had either 6× 0.50 cal BMG, or 2 × 20 mm and 4x .50 Cal BMG

F4U had 6 × 0.50 cal BMG, or 4 × 20 mm autocannons

Would a small number of 20mm cannons been more effective than 50 cal machine guns?