The allies have stuff like the Browning .50 cal, the DSHK, the Vickers, and the Hotchkiss 1929 while Nazi Germany seems to have just made do with the Mg34 and 42 for damn near every machine gun role. How was this the case?

Did the Versailles and other Post-WWI treaties had something to do with this?

Like speeches or letters or diary accounts by regular or prominent persons who were involved.

I’m at a loss for words but was there ever any “Neo-loyalist” movement? It’s hard for me to imagine that all loyalty to the crown had faded in just 30 years. Or had they genuinely all moved to Canada after the revolution?

I’m aware that the majority of Native American nations sided with the British, that’s not the aspect Im asking about.

Ancient people used mythology to explain the things they didn't understand in nature. However I don't think I've seen anything on how ancient people viewed static electricity/static shocks. Surely they must have experienced them like we do. How did they rationalize them?

[deleted]

Hello all,

How do you say "weighing of the heart" in Ancient Egyptian? I've looked for the original expression, but I can't find anything. Also, where would you find a list or dictionary with all sorts of phrases in Ancient Egyptian, like for example, "neb ta djeser" for "lord of the holy land"?

I'm listening to Hardcore History and am stuggling to comprehend just what people like Hiroo Onoda thought they were accomplishing by fighting alone for nearly 30 years with no contact from command. How did they decide what operations to undertake? Why didn't they ever make an effort to contact Japanese command? How did they rationalize nearly three full decades of radio silence, with no new instructions or orders being delivered?

Depictions of the Japanese during WWII tend to portray them as fanatics, willing to throw their lives away in the name of the nation and the emperor even in ways that wouldn't bring any particular benefit. This is especially commonly brought up any time the possibility of an invasion of the Japanese islands at the end of the war is discussed, as an explanation for why the atomic bombings were necessary - supposedly the Japanese civilian population largely would have been willing to throw their lives away in fruitless attempts at resistance. This characterization strikes me as kind of orientalistic, what basis does it have in historical research? Was the Japanese civilian population actually more fanatical in its desire to defend the islands than the populations of the other Axis powers were to defend their own homelands?

I'm a Brit and I've travelled in Quebec quite a lot. One thing i keep hearing when I'm discussing the history of the region is that people who came to Canada from France treated the indigenous people in a much kinder and better manner than those from other parts of Europe. (Particularly the UK).

I've heard that they were much more likely to trade, work, and have families with natives, and much less likely to exploit, enslave, wage war, and commit acts of genocide. Does anyone have some historical knowledge about this? I wonder if it's a politically motivated myth perpetuated by a desire to distinguish francophone Canadians from the anglophones.

It is often said that Egypt became the breadbasket of the Roman Empire, with Egyptian grain shipments being vital to support the "grain dole" for the poor of Rome.

But I'm having a hard time picturing the actual mechanics of it.

How was the grain shipped? Did they have specialized ships for shipping grain? How did they manage to keep all this food from spoiling? Was it just grain or was other food also moved around the Empire? (Aside from the famous Spanish olive oil)

I would appreciate if you could point me to some reading on this.

Thanks!

So there is this rather popular post over on /r/history asking more or less this exact question. There is referral to multiple sources but none of them (after brief skimming over the post) are actually citing anything I'd consider valuable academic source material. Instead of discussing the question (especially in the top answer), the answers at the top all describe the bombing as necessary to save American and Japanese (military and civilian) lives. The theory that it was also a showing of power towards the Soviet Union is labeled as "revisionist bullshit" and while I am glad that there are people explaining that "revisionist" has a different meaning in history than our usual use of language there are no satisfying answers to the question asked.

To put it briefly, are there any open to the public, top level sources that give any input regarding the motivation behind the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (and if so, how reliable are these sources?)

edit: (Question was asked by u/cnap92, sorry for bad formatting, I am not using a PC for this post)

As in, we use B.C and A.D, but obviously the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc etc. wouldn't have that, so how did they record the years and where was the starting point? Furthermore, how would we know exactly when things happen and put it on our own timeline?

Sorry if this question is badly worded.

Was there any political bodies he had to answer to? Were there any checks on his power?

Title pretty self-explanatory, this is a topic of interest so I'd like to read some of the details of Japanese occupation/invasion in the Philippines, especially considering the Philippines was still a colony of the US. I'd also like to learn more about the different perspectives and actions of the Filipino people during that time.

Just an idle thought, but I'm wondering the sexual attitudes (and economics) of the New World were profoundly changed by the introduction of the European concept of sex work, or if indigenious societies had roughly analoguous positions. I can imagine that the conquistadores and colonists weren't picky (and frankly, a fair bit of rape occurred), but do their accounts suggest any such profession?

[deleted]

Is it because of the winter conditions that slowed down the development in the North America? If so, didn't the rainforests pose a similar natural barrier or inhibitor in the Southern? Was it because South American Natives were already more developed compared to the North America and it removed the pretext for Spanish to "tame" the land and make it arable and sustainable?

Hello everybody, thank you so much for your attention. My questions regards China, more especifically. If you guys have any recommended resources, they are all welcome! I'm asking this question here because everyone is so educated and elaborated! I always get amazed at your answers. Whilst I love history, I'm just an amateur. My motivations to learn about China lie on the fact that one of my best friends, and penpal, is chinese.

In Europe, there are distinct cultural differences down through history, from the Barbarians and Greco-Romans of ancient times, to the Christian Kingdoms, to the secular, democratic modern era (simplified, of course). How different would life in the dynasties of China have been? Would someone from Han China recognize the China of the Tang? Of the Song? The Qing? What differences would have been most apparent?

I've been reading more about the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and I can't understand why a picket wasn't in place while the fleet was stationed there.

They did have radar, but wouldn't they have had destroyers placed around the islands same as is they were at sea? Was the area too great? Did the ships not have their own radar at the time?