Furthermore, has there ever been any official acknowledgement/apology of the United States in their complicity in granting amnesty many of the doctors/scientists that were involved in the experiments took place?

I am aware that in Japan there is a culture of trying to forget the exceptionally shady parts of their history in regards to WW2, especially in terms of the experimentation of Unit 731, comfort women, and the rape of Nanking.

Chiang Kai-shek as the leader of the nationalists was defeated by Mao Zedong's communists in the Chinese Civil War which concluded by 1949. Kai-shek's Kuomintang subsequently retreated to Taiwan, where they tried to maintain the "Republic of China" - known informally as Taiwan -, whereas Mao Zedong proclaimed the "People's Republic of China" - often just referred to as China.

My question is: How is Chiang Kai-shek viewed in the country that is still under the one-party rule of a faction that once defeated him in civil war? Is his legacy perceived differently by historians in Mainland China than it is in the rest of the world?

Winds on the Great Plains can have gusts of 60+ mph. With frequent wind and little natural wind breaks, what would they do to anchor their belongings? Being mostly hunter-gatherers, they would need to anchor their things but be easy enough to pack up and move. Would a windy day potentially be catastrophic?

In The Admiral: Roaring Currents the Japanese sniper is shown to have multiple guns. When she fires one, she hands it off to a guy next to her, who hands her another gun already loaded.

In the Crown, at the end of the first episode George VI goes hunting. He takes a shot, then gives it to his assistant, who hands him another gun.

Furthermore--was there a name for the person whose job it was to reload guns?

Did they simply listen to their own local musicians or did music from countries such as the UK, US, and France also play a big part in the music listened to? Was the type of music that was available restricted or censored? Thanks!

Becoming a dictator seems risky. Hitler could as well have ended up in prison for treason and/or murder, couldn’t he? So my question is... when taking over such a big nation that already has courts and judges and laws, where did Hitler start? Who did he get on his side to be confident enough to take over the country? And was he ever close to failing, was there ever a police or judge or prosecutor who claimed it was against the law?

If the intention was for maximum casualties and shock and awe to promote a surrender, a day time attack seems less beneficial. A night attack would have tactically been safer, unexpected and caused more confusion in the darkness. What led to the timeline decision of the attack?

There was a lot of bad stuff at that time, sure, but logically, why is that specific time period seen as so bleak as opposed to 50 years before, when they were more diseases, deaths, and general unpleasantries? Are there examples of text from that time that were reflective of this sentiment, or is this entirely a contemporary viewpoint?

It seems as though they were working puppet state for Germany but then they defied Germany by scuttling their own fleet. It seems like if you'd be in for a penny you'd be in for a pound.

Why did they not either allow the fleet to detect to French North Africa or give control of the fleet to Germany?

In WW2, it seems as if the standards for calibers had been set, 9mm/.45 ACP for most handguns, 7.62/.30 cal for most rifles and LMGs, 12.7/.50 cal for your HMGs, 20mm to 37mm for your autocannons (early to mid war at least), ~75mm to 88mm for your typical tank gun, 120mm to 155mm for your artillery pieces and anything 200mm+ for your battleships or very large artillery pieces. So, why have these particular calibers become so universal, even into modern times? Why don't we see more 163mm artillery guns or .49 cal machine guns? Is it just a matter of "These calibers already seem to work just fine," or is it that all of those different calibers we don't see were tested and deemed inefficient/inappropriate for the job, and in that case, what made them inefficient compared to what we currently use?

After the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished, the Hashemites of the Hedjaz made themselves the caliphs, on the basis that they controlled Mecca and Medina. This Caliphate didn’t last long, however, because the Saudis conquered the Hedjaz for themselves. After Abdulaziz Ibn Saud had the holy cities, why didn’t he declare himself Caliph?

Simple question: What do we know about Jesus historically, not biblically, and what did he do that made him such an iconic figure after his death?

From what I've read, most conquistadores came from the kingdoms of Castile and Navarre, but very few were from Aragón, why?

It can even be seen in the names of towns and provinces, with places named Nueva Vizcaya, Nueva Galicia, Nueva Extremadura, etc

[deleted]