So I'm a huge history nerd, And I was under the impression that the atomic bomb did not force Japan's surrender. Instead the primary factor was the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan and threatening to invade Hokkaido.

However, whenever I bring this up in public, I'm met with fierce resistance. People argue with me to the teeth over this, despite there being quite a bit of literature that suggests the contrary.

I think this is odd because most people have no problem accepting that what we were taught in normal history books might be biased or wrong.

Example: history books say that Americans settled the West, but most people nowadays assume that it was actually an invasion.

We were taught that the atomic bomb forced Japan's surrender in history books. So why do people not question this?

Is there actually a debate among historians? Or is resistance to The idea that the Soviets forced Japan surrender simply a matter of being uninformed?

Politicians in the Roman Republic used to have fasces. These were axes who’s handle was in the middle of a bound bundle of wooden sticks with the number of sticks depending on their rank in government. They use to take them to public events to show off this authority. The bound sticks standing for the state as the unifier of all the citizens and the axes representing the state‘s authority to sentence people to death.

Have any of these fasces survived to the present day? If they haven’t, why didn’t they make it to today? They’re just a bound bundle of wooden sticks with an axe in the middle. Just wood, metal, and rope. I don’t see how that could perish.

And if they did survive to today, why I can’t I find pictures of them?

I'm reading James Clavell’s “Shogun” and in it the Portuguese (then part of the broader Spanish empire) are depicted as using Christian Japanese mercenaries (ronin) to man their forts in the Philippines and as far west as Goa in India. Is this something that happened in real life and if so do we have any records of what life was like for Japanese in India or the broader pacific during the late 16th, early 17th centuries?

I think there’s a basic belief that the Dieppe Raid in 1943 was a “dry run” for a future invasion of Europe. But I had heard from some in the military community that the raid was a sham, with the real objective to obtain a key component from a German radar station (klystron tube?). Either answer might be correct. And maybe both are reasonable. But amassing 247 ships, thousands of troops, etc. seems overkill for just a piece of electrical hardware. I’m curious if there are any other experts out there who might know more about this footnote in the Second World War. (Or maybe it’s a footnote for some other reasons?)

Edit: I just realized, it was 1942, not 1943.

I initially believed that it was because of the Anglican-Catholic split, but I just learned that even the Normans regarded the Irish as being 'barbarous'. Why?

who did they dethrone?

I asked this on r/askphilosophy but I also wanted to get some input from people in history.

I was thinking about history today, and I thought about this. For example, take something like the Cold War. In it, there's a series of events: the invention of the hydrogen bomb, various people going to space, the fall of the Berlin wall, etc.

But, why should we group all of those different events under "The Cold War"? Why should we see them all as one period? Did people who were alive at the time even see it like that?

Or, maybe a better example: "The fall of Rome". Did people, at the time, experience those events as "the fall of Rome?" Did they see it as a homogenous series of events, all leading up to the fall of Rome?

It seems like, whenever something is declared as a historical period or an event, it's always, to some extent, anachronistic.

But, I'm no history expert or anything. I wouldn't even say I'm good at it. So, I'd like some other people's opinions.

I've heard stories from my older relatives about guns being extremely common here in Mexico. This was obviously an effect of the revolutionary war, which was fought mostly by volunteer armies. It makes sense all those people kept using guns after the war, and that they taught their children to use guns

However none of those old relatives owns a gun today, and neither does anyone else I know. To buy a gun you have to go to the one gun store in the country, which is owned by the army, and you have to pass all their tests which I'm told are quite strict, and even then they'll only sell you a revolver or a hunting rifle

Clearly Mexico went through a very radical change in gun culture, but no one can tell me when it happened nor how

I've asked my grandparents when and why did people stop buying guns, or when did people stop selling them, and they are not sure. I've asked them when did the law change to make gun ownership more regulated, but again they don't know

I'm baffled. How did Mexico change so much in regards to gun ownership?

edit: Let me give more concrete examples. These come from my family, which is obviously a narrow perspective, but it is the one I have

My grandmother tells me all the men in her family had guns when she was a little girl. She tells me her father always carried two guns because he was ambidextrous and boasted of being able to shoot very precisely with either hand

Her brother (my granduncle) tells me his father gave him a gun when he was fourteen because "a man must always carry a gun." In fact the phrase in spanish was "un hombre siempre debe estar enpistolado" where "enpistolado" is a word which specifically means "to be carrying a gun." They had a special word for it

They also tell me of meeting old "adelitas" (women who fought in the revolution) and that those women still had the habit of carrying guns everywhere they went, and were quite proud of it

Those are examples of the "gun culture" which it seems used to exist in Mexico but disappeared in the last 60 to 50 years. Probably other fellow mexicans have similar examples

Today whatever gun culture remains in the country is not as widespread as it once was, and it's either related to hunting as a hobby or it's heavily influenced by organized crime, and most people are not part of either of those things

edit: About the drug cartels

I have received a few DMs from people saying that there are still tons of guns in Mexico and the drug cartels have them, but that's kinda the point. Guns went from being something everyday people would have to something only criminals have. The only legal form of gun culture is among people who are hunters as a hobby, and most people are not criminals nor hunters

Also, there is no doubt the drug cartels get the vast majority of their guns form the United States. Mexico is at fault for the existence of the drug cartels, but without the United States they wouldn't have as many guns as they have today

I understand that we use the gregorian calendar which is a reformed version of the roman calendar. But what exactly the determined the days each month has ? Why e.g has February 27 days and not March or why do some have 30 days and others 31 ?

I've searched a bit on the Internet and first i don't seem to figure out which was the name of the machine and even if it was Turing that invented it. I've seen the Bombe and Colossus and they literally seem the same thing for me, also i've read that Turing didn't invent it but it was already invented, he took inspiration and built a new machine but the concept wasn't invented by him. I need to do this for a school project and i can't seem to understand much about Turing, Enigma and the Turing machine. Do you know anything?

Ive noticed in any portrait of an Ottoman consort or such she always has her hair out. Which seems very unusual for the late medieval and early modern Islamic world.

Was it that they were considered "special", and thus the rules did not apply to them?

I know this is a bit of an asinine one. But I just read some posts on other subs regarding this issue and I don't know what to make of Hitler and the Nazi's policies. I would like the clear historical consensus or the arguments used by the historians if it still does not have a definite answer. Or if it already has been answered in some different post, I would love if someone would post the link in the comments.

Thank you in advance.

A picture of Chamberlain showing the agreement he signed with Hitler has been doing the rounds.

A lot of people are saying that he was aware that Britain was 'woefully unprepared' to go to war and the Munich agreement allowed for an increase in war preparations. Is this true?

Did British military spending/production/preparations increase immediately after the Munich agreement? And if so, was it as part of a set plan in which Chamberlain was involved, or simply a natural response to Germany's expansion?

Did Chamberlain have a plan and was he judged too harshly by posterity, or is this a case of reddit revisionism?

I am a Jewish exchange student in the Netherlands, and I have become very curious about the Dutch narrative of the Holocaust/WWII. My experience during the lead-up to Memorial Day and Liberation Day was that there was a lot of focus on Dutch resistance, and no mention of collaboration. The Dutch narrative appears to be one of pride due to the very active resistance forces in the region. I have visited multiple museums and taken tours in many cities, and this has always been the focus. Throughout all this, my question has become--then why were 90% of the Dutch Jews murdered?

However, recently I went on a tour through Amsterdam with a very passionate tour guide who, for the first time, asserted that collaboration between Dutch police in Amsterdam and the Nazis was extremely high, and that this was the reason for the disappearance of the Dutch Jews, and that Dutch people don't like to discuss this aspect of Dutch history. I found this very interesting, as the Jewish Museum in Amsterdam had presented a narrative of coexistence and prosperity until the Nazis came along. So, I guess I'm asking;

1. Is this narrative true? Were the Netherlands truly a better place to be Jewish than most of the world? Were Jews as assimilated as I have been told?
2. Is the Dutch pride in resistance and WWII tolerance a 'whitewashing' narrative or one that reflects a reality in which the Dutch had less collaboration with the Nazis and greater resistance efforts than most of Europe? What I mean by collaboration is on the more local level, individuals acting out of hatred.
3. What happened to the surviving Dutch Jews? Were there any instances of anger or violence such as the Kielce pogrom in Poland? Did they remain in refugee camps? After that, where did they go?
4. As a bonus question: how do the Dutch remember the Jews?

Thanks in advance!