3 Answers 2018-03-15
I'm primarily interested in the period from its origins through 1933, with a particular interest in the 1918 revolution and related issues. But I wouldn't mind something that includes the post-WWII era as well.
1 Answers 2018-03-15
Bonus points if you can tell me more about how that might've been affected by the rise of the Nazis (though he died in 1937, so I'm not sure how much on that there is).
1 Answers 2018-03-15
1 Answers 2018-03-15
I have been studying this in History in school, and there seems to be a few pieces missing out the puzzle. Here's what I (thinkknow:
After VE Day, Potsdam conference is organized to figure out what the postwar world would look like, and how to defeat Japan. An unconditional surrender is demanded of Japan.
Previously in the Yalta conference, Stalin had agreed to invade Manchuria (Japanese occupied) three months after VE day.
I don't know when it started, but US continues its firebombing raids against Japanese cities, decimating like 60+ cities. The Japanese respond to the Potsdam Declaration with something about "kill it with silence," and so the Allies take that as a no.
Japanese attempt to get Soviets to help them surrender unconditionally (at this point USSR has entered the Pacific War).
US wants an unconditional surrender, so that the emperor will be replaced with a democracy in Japan.
The US drops two atomic bombs, in an attempt to gain a Japanese surrender.
The US agrees to a CONDITIONAL surrender with Japan, so that the Soviets do not have a say in the Pacific War. The US essentially tells the Soviets that they cannot have any of the land claims from the Pacific War, as they only invaded Manchuria, and so the Soviets would have to make a different treaty/agreement.
What happened that the US changed its mind about wanting a conditional surrender, or didn't know that the Soviets would want land claims for entering the war. Sorry for being long, and thanks a lot!
Also btw, my teacher didn't know the answer. I did ask her first, and she agreed that it was really odd.
2 Answers 2018-03-15
1 Answers 2018-03-15
I've seen plenty of people using the phrase "cut the Confederacy in half" with regards to Grant taking the rest of the Mississippi River in 1863, and how it was a great loss to the Confederacy.
But it wasn't anywhere near half. By states, it was 2 cut off from 9. By population, it was a little over 1 million on the west side, 8 million on the east side. I don't know how to tell whether they produced any useful supplies for the rest of the Confederacy. By transport, there were hardly any railroads crossing the Mississippi River ( http://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/1864rr?p=2 : includes gauges!), so almost all supplies would have gone by rivers to the Mississippi or the ocean; the previous loss of New Orleans and the increasing US blockade would have blocked ocean travel anyway. I wonder whether the main value of the Mississippi River was to allow the US Midwest to export abroad ... except that they could do that already with the Great Lakes + Erie Canal, or by the extensive railroad network.
So why is it said to have been a great blow?
Edits: (1) About the stated importance: Grant in his Memoirs, I, 567, wrote "the fate of the Confederacy was sealed when Vicksburg fell". McPherson quotes that when writing "The capture of Vicksburg was the most important northern strategic victory of the war".
(2) /u/free_world33's assertion (removed) provokes a question. I wonder if it's a separate top-level question or a/the major followon here. In 1860, what trade happened across the Mississippi River, where did it come from, where did it go? What trade happened along it, where did it come from, where did it go?
1 Answers 2018-03-15
How did East Germans react when they went from living in a market capitalist state, albeit one much affected by war and the Nazi party, to living under a Marxist system?
1 Answers 2018-03-15
I see this claim raised and shared by “friends” on facebook (often sharing some nationalistic posts), and I tried to find some facts online but can’t see any reliable source.
Did Britain ask Poland to pay such money? (And if it did, why? Polish pilots were defending the UK borders at that point and are held in high respect here in Scotland)
And if it did, did Poland pay that sum?
1 Answers 2018-03-15
Who exactly were the celtic people and how did they differ from a people who were called the 'germani' by the romans? Also what's the difference between galic and celtic peoples?
1 Answers 2018-03-15
1 Answers 2018-03-15
[deleted]
1 Answers 2018-03-15
I'm looking for readings about writing in Mesoamerica. I'm interested more in the social context of writing (who was doing the writing? what types of texts are there?) than the mechanics of the writing systems, but any suggestions are welcome.
I found Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations by Joyce Marcus, which covers Maya, Mixtec, Aztec, and Zapotec writing, but book reviews indicate mixed feelings about the book (from Maya experts in particular).
2 Answers 2018-03-15
1 Answers 2018-03-15
1 Answers 2018-03-15
Did these groups meet, travel to one another's hideout's?
Is it coincedence that the three were all former axis countries during ww2?
2 Answers 2018-03-15
A front-page thread shows a haunting photo of a teenaged girl in a concentration camp, her head shaven, taken not long after a female kapo had beaten her.
https://i.redd.it/yqegpecsttl01.jpg
The kapos would undoubtedly say they were forced into it by the Nazis, but did they ever face trial or other punishment by the Allies?
1 Answers 2018-03-15
Were individuals who had, for example, broken legs or ankles, left behind when their legion marched?
1 Answers 2018-03-15
Hey folks, was redirected here from /r/history...
I'm currently working on a research project on judicial dueling (and dueling generally) and am having some trouble finding any recent scholarship outside the US. My current focus is on contacting active European scholars/historians/professors who specialize or have an active interest in 16th-19th century dueling (not trial by combat), or at the least are experts in European history over that period. Specifically, I'm looking for individuals in Ireland, the British Isles, Germany, France, and Italy, but location is not necessarily dispositive. If anyone has any specific recommendations or additional resources that might facilitate my search, please let me know. Thanks!
2 Answers 2018-03-15
I think from a Joe Rohan podcast he said something along the lines of they had an Iroquois native sit upstairs as they wrote out the constitution to provide guidance as to what the Iroquois. Also side question that is unrelated, what would be some good choice of books to study Native American history?
1 Answers 2018-03-15
1 Answers 2018-03-15
Did the ancient and classical-era civilizations know more about their predecessors than we know about them? For example, did the Ancient Greeks know more about the Minoans, or did the Persians know more about the Babylonians and Sumerians, or whatever civilizations might have existed at the dawn of agriculture? I suppose the same question would apply to Egypt and in the far East.
1 Answers 2018-03-15
Hi everyone:
I've recently watched Hitler's circle of Evil on netflix and despite I've found it sensationalist and yellowy in a way, I've realised that even though I've read some wonderful books on the issue of the third reich such as "A social History of the third Reich" from Richard Grunberger or "Why the Allies won" from Richard Overy I've never read a proper academic book or biography about the Nazi Leaders. I'm quite interested in learning more about all of them and their relations. Is there any book that this sub would reccomend? I would be grateful for your help.
EDIT: Dont worry if the books are dense or not very well written, i'm looking for academic articles or books, i'm interested in facts not in speculation or fiction.
1 Answers 2018-03-15
Thursday Reading and Research is intended as an academic free-for-all, for the discussion of all issues historical, or tangentially so. Suggested topics include, but are by no means limited to:
New developments or discoveries in the field
Recent book releases, old book reviews, reading recommendations, or just talking about what you're reading now
Historiographical discussions, debates, and disputes
Your current research interests or projects
The goings on within the academy
...And so on!
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters historical discussion, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
2 Answers 2018-03-15