As a Migrant myself, I would really like to see if there was any insights, thoughts, maybe journals from people from that time.

And is it true they would have surrendered earlier if the Allies could have guaranteed Emperor Hirohito's safety? Was the only other way the war would end if the Allies launched a large invasion committing hundreds of thousands of ground troops with air and naval support? How many Japanese people and how much of the leadership wanted to surrender earlier?

I mean, he was the last to be offically crowbed as emperor (as far as I know), and wasn't Ethiopia known as the "Ethiopian Empire" before the communist coup?

So, was he?

Title basically sums up my question.

I'm re-watching Costa Gavras' classic film Z, a semi-factual account of the rise of the Junta in the 1960s.

The film ends with a long list of things banned by the junta, which include "strikes, labor unions, long hair on men, mini-skirts, the peace symbol, the Beatles, Sophocles, Tolstoy, Aeschylus, Socrates, Eugene Ionesco, Sartre, Chekhov, Mark Twain, Samuel Beckett, free press, new math and the letter Z, which in Greek means Il est vivant."

So I guess the first question is, does Z really mean or stand for "he still lives" in Greek?

Was the letter really banned, or is that just hyperbolic? How did typewriters work?

This question was inspired by an argument with a man who believes that Christianity is essentially pacifist and peaceful, while Islam is essentially violent, or at least more condoning of violence than is Christianity. When I pointed out that Christianity has not been interpreted in an ultra-pacifist manner by most people in history, and that it is just as capable of being interpreted in a violent manner as Islam, he responded by saying that medieval and early modern religious violence was the result of the corruption of the Catholic Church, which misled believers. Now leaving aside the absurdity of that, what strikes me is that this man (and presumably many others like him) was so convinced of Christianity's fundamentally pacifist nature that he was willing to declare that millions of believers across more than a dozen centuries were misinterpreting the faith.

There's obviously a major disconnect between the way many people think of Christianity today and the way that the religion has manifested itself in the past. Why the change? How did medieval and early modern Christians justify violence and why are those justifications no longer accepted by modern-day Christians? How do modern-day Christians justify pacifism, and why would those arguments be rejected by medievals and early moderns? Of course, pacifists have existed historically as well, and there are plenty of people alive today who do use Christianity to justify violence, but I am interested here in mainstream interpretations.

I'd also like to clarify that I'm not asking about which is the correct interpretation of Christianity, since I believe no such thing exists, religion is just what people make of it.

Hey guys, I'm in a high level Soviet Union history course, and we were just assigned our research paper that will serve as our "final exam grade". It's pretty standard, a research paper "which should advance an original argument based on the analysis of primary sources."

My Question here is this: what would be a topic that would be most likely to yield a large number of primary sources on this paper.

Despite taking this class, I am not a history major, and I'm not quite sure which topic would have alot of material on it already, I just don't want to run into a situation where I pick a subject and then have to switch it up like halfway through BC there isn't enough content,

thanks.

So I've read Marx's Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto and my understanding of Communism is basically a stateless, classes society, right? So how is Stalin, the leader of one of the most state-heavy governments I can think of, considered such a powerful communist leader? I'll admit I don't know much about Lenin but I was under the understanding that Stalin was a follower of Lenin so I'm including him on the question.

(X-Posted on /r/AskScience)

And if there was no transmission of widespread plagues by the Norse, why? What was the difference between the Norse and the Spanish, which only caused one of the groups to transmit plagues?

All these comparisons of Trump = Nixon makes me wonder if Nixon-era media was anything like it is today.

I understand there weren't any 24 hour news networks back then so of course it'd be different that way. Also, did Nixon have House/Senate majority as Trump does today, and what ultimately led to the public outcry for Nixon's impeachment?

Hey guys!

I don't know if it's permited to make this kind of requests, but here I go:

On the 9th of June I'll be taking college entry exams for a Musical Sciences course. I had to choose 2 topics to address. In which I chose:

1 - Verdi and Wagner: What impact they had in opera's history;

2 - Current and past musical events surrounding World War I.

I'm not entirely sure what format the exam will have. I'm speculating there will be a citation and I elaborate from there.

I'm kinda panicking because I've been reading some bibliographies and sometimes they seem so overwhelming that I'm not sure which points are the most important and should memorize.

For what I understand so far Wagner and Verdi were seen as opposites. Wagner the german titan with serious, complex and radical notions, finding meaning in drama and dance, music in motion. Leaving what is known as wagnerian harmony like the chord in Tristan. Inspired a lot of composers to come and in his lifetime was prestigious and influencial.

Verdi I don't know as much. I know he was the italian representative and hero of opera, writing popular, simple and conservative pieces. While persuing drama he did not foster philosophical ambicions for his art.

The topic about World War I is one I still haven't read much. I know that after WWI in Germany there was a "opera crisis" with Wagner saturation which led to a rehabilitation to Verdi's reputation.

If you guys could help me, what points about the topics do you find more important and relevant?

I'll appreciate any help.

PS: Sorry if I was confusing in any way. I tried to translate everything to english the best I could.

Good evening,

This is my first time posting on this reddit and I hope I understand the rules well enough that this question fits here.

I am starting on a personal project which demands I become more deeply familiar with England's history. I've set my start date for Julius Caesar's bumbling over to Britain as that at least gives me one primary source to work with, being his Gallic Wars.

My question then is, in regards to Iron Age Britain, and the Roman period following, what do we even have for sources?

I understand the Iron Age resources are probably quite sparse, but if I could get any advice on where to look for books or journals discussing artifacts, monuments, and the like I'd be grateful.

Thank you for your time!

I see in Civil War movies and such that when a canon ball lands, it's almost like an explosion, but I don't think ordinary balls really do that. How much damage would a canon actually do to troops on the ground? Obviously getting hit by a canon would probably kill you, but I mean in the grander scheme of the battle. It seems to me that launching a single canon ball at a time at the advancing forces would be kind of inefficient. Did they use other types of special antipersonnel ammunition? How many people could you expect to be effected by a single shot? How did they maximize effectiveness against the enemy.