To be more specific, how did the technical characteristics, performance and specifications of naval aircraft (Especially WW2-era aircraft) differ from their land-based counterparts, and why were they different?

3000 Japanese died, which is 10 times more than the number of Americans. However, only 3 times more Japanese carriers were sunk and from what I know, the USS Yorktown was large than a couple of the 4 Japanese carriers. Also, 100 more Japanese aircraft were destroyed than American, but I would think that most of this difference was planes on the aircraft when they were hit, not necessarily shot down. I also see that a US battleship was sunk, which I am sure had a lot of people on it thus making the 10x difference even more surprising.

So how was it possible for 10 times more Japanese to die than Americans? Did the Japanese carriers just have way more sailors on them? Did the Japanese allocate nothing towards rescuing people during the battle?

Here are the stats I found on Wikipedia

By that logic, I would expect China to have started their first space program while we were still busy burning witches...

Edit: You all probably know what I'm talking about, but I should add that by Christianity, I meant the Catholic church/inquisition during middle-ages in Europe (the time of "heretics" burning and destroying everything that didn't agree with the general doctrine, aka anything that could have been a scientific breakthrough)

Edit: Science-Fiction

[deleted]

[deleted]

I have read that he was cremated, yet I have not read or heard anything further than that.

Eventually winning the war with Carthage in the next 15 years I get, but to then two of the Hellenistic kingdoms in the next decade? How did Rome recover so quickly, and why were the Hellenistic kingdoms unable to defeat or even hold off an exhausted Rome? Where they just too weak?

I'm doing a little family history project which is a little difficult because a) I can't go to Japan b) most of my family doesn't speak English c) most of my family records were destroyed in WWII.

My grandfather mentioned that the Japanese government built 12 Buddhist temples around the Kyushu coast to house soldiers in case of an attack which never came, so the temples sort of faded into obscurity as some of the several thousand temples in Japan. One of those temples, Houden-ji in Fukuoka, was his home as a child. Currently Houden-ji is surrounded by city and landlocked, however, my grandfather recalls playing by the sea when he lived there as a child. He moved to Manchuria as a child, then moved back to Japan when the Soviets invaded Manchuria. All he's told us about that time is that everything was burned and the suffering was great.

1. Based on the narrative, is it likely Houden-ji was burned down and rebuilt more inland? The only records kept at Houden-ji is a book of ancestry.

2. Where are the other temples located, or how can I find them? Any information about these at all?

I'm trying to piece together the historical narrative a bit but Google is iffy on Japanese history, plus I can't read or speak Japanese. Any Japanese historians that can help me out?

Weatern Austrailia is, for example, 9 hours ahead of the UK, but that difference wouldn't have made much material difference until instant communications became possible, a very long time afrer it's discovery. Explorers wouldn't notice gradual shifts in time at the speeds they travelled until the last century or so. My question isn't about how time zones got sert and agreed, but more when and how did people first notice that the days were out of synch in far flung places?

I mean, did they have any kind of special vehicle? Or did they just have common trucks with some oil barrels inside?

I'm trying to find some books/writing from the cultural, political and/or economical perspective. I want to understand the aftermath perhaps in the same vain of the German systems post WW I/II.

Where can I find a good, reliable source of info on the medieval times?

I would imagine it would be incredibly easy to keep slaves from hearing the news that they've been freed in rural areas. Were there any slaveowners that simply ignored the 13th amendment and continues with their routine until caught?

As a wider question, how did liberating slaves go following the 13th? Were people generally compliant?

In Black Reconstruction WEB Du Bois writes: "One has but to read the debates in Congress and state papers from Abraham Lincoln down to know that the decisive action which ended the Civil War was the emancipation and arming of the black slave; that, as Lincoln said: "Without the military help of black freedmen, the war against the South could not have been won."" Does anyone know any potential sources for this quotation?

How was the Rosenberg case seen before the declassification of VENONA?

As far as I know, Alger Hiss was seen as probably not guilty, and is now seen as likely guilty. What about the Rosenbergs, even their sons have given up on Julius, now, but before the declassification, how were each seen? Was there a political split on views?

The Government did as far as I remember, declassify some things from VENONA during the trial itself, was it stated how they got it? Was anti-semetism an issue in the case; IIRC the judge was himself Jewish, though he might have been chosen to avoid this appearance.

Were the japanese at all worried about the Germans betraying them like they did with the Soviets? Same goes for the Italians, did they think the Germans would turn against them?

Like a lot of people, I've studied the Battle of Agincourt in school but my touchstone for the fictional depiction of it is Shakespeare's Henry V, which deals a lot with what in a modern conflict we'd call war crimes -- the killing of prisoners of war, as well as the threat of what Henry might allow to happen to the civilian residents of Harfleur. (The latter case reads like a laundry list of atrocities -- naked infants spitted on pikes while their mothers watch, elderly men's heads dashed in, rape of civilian women and girls, etc., all framed as things that, while unsanctioned by Henry himself as a chivalrous king, will surely happen if the people of Harfleur don't surrender good and quick while his soldiers are still under his control. This rhetorical flourish conveniently allows Shakespeare's Henry to exercise the threat of these acts while still maintaining the pretext that he isn't condoning or ordering them.) I also have murky recollections from reading Ian Mortimer's 1415 that there were crimes perpetrated against French civilian women during the course of the (historical) campaign leading up to Agincourt, and that some French individuals understood their defeat at Agincourt as God's punishment for those specific sins/crimes. Do we have a sense of how contemporary early 15th century French thinkers viewed the French military's own actions against civilians, as well as the English army's actions during this campaign? What did contemporary individuals consider to be the parameters of acceptable and unacceptable conduct in a military action between Christian nations?

Im not sure if this question is acceptable or not but I am looking for some interesting historical blogs to follow and reference. Thank you in advance!

[deleted]