Was there any diversity back then? I know people say that Jews weren't considered white, but they at least have the same skin color. Are people wrong to be upset?

Im currently reading a book on the witch hunts and the author talk about some jesuit professor of a university who participated in the witch hunt somewhere and i asked myself how studying in the universities in this time would have been, especially in theology

How would the lectures be, which subjects could you study, how the exams would be, etc...

Thanks in advance

In a recent visit to London, there is a WW2 memorial which talks about the 2.5MM Indian soldiers who volunteered to fight in WW2 while India was under British colonial rule. It is considered the largest volunteer army in history.

However, I would say that anecdotal conversions in India imply that many of those men volunteered due to lack of food/employment at home, and some books state that there were reduced requirements so sick/anemic people were also joining. The implication is that this was basically "forced conscription" and not people volunteering on their own volition.

Is there historical data/evidence one way or another? I'm sure some people volunteered on their own accord, but can we measure how many people were essentially forced into joining through either coercion, starvation, or other poor living conditions?

I understand it was not small in terms of absolute numbers, but it seems impossible that the Empire's population, which was easily around the 50-ish million strong, couldn't muster enough able-bodied men to deter the Germanic tribes, Huns, which have had, as I understand it, much smaller armies. Why was Rome ultimately unable to defend itself using native forces?

I'm using McRaven's definition of a special operation: roughly, one in which a force with inferior relative superiority (conventionally defined) achieves a temporary, decisive relative superiority over the larger force.

I'm trying to shy away from instances where new or unexpected technology was the difference: instead, I'm trying to focus on the mindset, personality, and decision-making of the force who achieved a coup against a foe with whom they have technological parity.

Any suggestions would be appreciated: examples, books, etc.

I read Homage to Catalonia a few years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it, however I've been wondering ever since whether Orwell is biased in how he reports it (I recall he himself wrote he thought to be).

More specifically, I'm interested in the dynamics between the parties involved, and how Orwell claims the URSS ended up fighting against both anarchists and minority communists.

[deleted]

My understanding was always that in the British/French re-territorialising plan post-WW1, Kurdistan was supposed to be created. However, Ataturk invaded the area, and Britain decided it wasn't worth fighting Turkish forces yet again, just to ensure the existence of Kurdistan.

However, recently I read a news article by a British reporter in Kurdish Syria who blamed Kurdistan's non-existence on "America's refusal to live up to its League of Nations responsibilities". I wondered if someone could give some context to this.

Greetings! I have a small question regarding samurai names.

I have seen that samurai names are usually composed of three structures:

Surname / Courtesy name / Given name (which shall not be spoken)

or

Surname / Courtesy name (occupational) / Courtesy name (order of birth) / Given name

or

Surname / Courtesy name (place) / Courtesy name (occupational) / Courtesy name (order of birth) / Given name

What I wanted to ask was in which context these names were used. In popular media and recriations of the period, I've only ever seen samurai use/be called by their surnames and given names (i.e. Oda Nobunaga, Date Masamune, etc.). However, I have read that given names were very important, and if a samurai let somebody know of their true given name, it meant the counter person would have control of their life and will. So Samurais never told their true name to anyone other than family. As a result, we don't even know true names of some of the most famous samurais.

Is this true? If so, did samurais in the Sengoku Jidai only use their courtesy names when speaking with other non-close samurai? Such as Nobunaga calling himself Saburō, Hideaki calling himself Kingo, Kiyomasa calling himself Toranosuke, etc.? In which circumstances would each name be used?

Also, if such a thing exists, could someone kindly indicate me a guide (Japanese or not) with known samurai full names?

Thank you very much!

With the controversy around the Polish government insisting the answer is "not at all", I was wondering what the real answer is.

We know the holocaust happened because of the overwhelming weight of evidence. But also because people caught in its machinery talked about what they saw.

What does David make of first-hand witness accounts? Does he simply call all the witnesses liars? Does he say that somehow they all got it wrong?

First I apologize if this is the wrong sub, but I don't know anywhere more appropriate to post this.

I'll spare you my life story, but all of my life, I have studied history, with particular focus on 20th century military and geopolitical history (especially World War II). History is my passion and what I live for. I am currently attending community college with plans to transfer to graduate school to pursue a masters or PhD in history, which will cost me tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars here in the US.

This brings me to my question. What is, aside from being a professor, are realistic jobs that will want me for my history degree once I graduate? History is my life, but I want to be able to support a family too. Thanks in advance. I do hope this the right sub for this.

The US space program during the late 50s and 60s was an outright public spectacle, with live coverage of launches and developments dominating news cycles, with an amazing level of public detail available. We've all seen the montages of early rockets blowing up, and my understanding is that most of this is not declassified footage, but things the public had ready access to at the time. My question is, what lead to our space program being so public-facing almost from the beginning, given that it ultimately had roots as a weapons-development operation, especially when pre-Sputnik, it seemingly was largely a directly millitary-run operation with little public fanfare, and given that the Soviet Union, by contrast, treated their program in this manner throughout the duration of the Soviet era? Was it a strategic, political decision, something forced by pure public and media mania in response to the Sputnick crisis, or something else?

To add onto this, what layouts came in between the first known layout and QWERTY (if any), and where do alternate but similar layouts such as AZERTY or QWERTZ fit in?