I just got done reading "Japan at War: An Oral History", and I really enjoyed the format of the book. Are there any other books like this (from any other points in history), that you would recommend?

If so, any good examples analogous to say the transition between the Medieval and the Renaissance Era?

A math teacher mentioned it.

Does anyone happen to know either how old the River Thames is or when it was first named the "Thames"? I'm getting conflicting answers on the internet? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I was looking into it and wondered: what are some of their actions towards helping human rights? What was the idea and how effective was it?

If I could get some sources to look further into it that would help. I've been looking into whether the UN is effective(I define that as them doing their job as defined by them, ex: help those in need, stop conflict)

I heard somewhere that women were not permitted to join the Nazi Party because politics was considered men's work, but I saw somewhere else that women were permitted to join. Which is correct?

Assuming women were allowed to join the Nazi Party, what sorts of actions would they do to support the cause? I'm imagining them handing out flyers about the upcoming elections, organizing metal drives, that sort of thing. Am I way off?

To be more specific, I'm thinking of the Dalriada (Dal Riata?) King, Áedán mac Gabráin. At this point I believe a part of Scotland and Ireland were part of the Dalriada Kingdom. I'm working on an illustration for a video, but I can't find any references for any Scotti people, only Picts. Would they have been significantly different in their dress/weapons/armour than Britons south of Scotland?

And now every language has been so simplified but we still need to go to school to learn it even if it's our own native one.

Was there ever even a clear distinction between assault guns and tank destroyers? I don't know if they worked with pure infantry or mechanised/motorised infantry and if they were part of the artillery throughout the war or if they transitioned to the armoured corps later on.

Thanks for any answers to this question(s).

After Macbeth killed Duncan, both of the brothers went into exile for a while, then Malcolm eventually came back and took the throne as the eldest son of Duncan as most of us would expect. Malcolm nominated one of his sons to be king after he died. However, for some reason Donald became king instead and there was an ongoing war between Malcolm's and Donald's descendants over the throne for multiple generations, but I am having trouble finding out why.

The most useful thing I could find was that the Scottish succession should have passed to Donald as his eldest brother, but not why. Even if Donald should have been king at that point due to the ages of Malcolm's sons, wouldn't that have just made him regent until they came of age?

Could someone please explain why Donald's family believed they were the legitmate heirs over Malcolm's?

I've heard many things about the British lying to the Arabs to keep Arabia united after the fall of the Ottoman Empire but Suez interests made them break the promise. I've also heard the Hasemite (sorry if it's not spelled correctly) kingdom should've been established after the fall too.

Can someone explain or send links to credible sources about how western powers drew the borders and how it links to the current mess in the Middle East today? I'm very interested in the topic.

So I get that your first name was your given name [Gaius, Lucius, Marcus, Marcus,] I get that your second name was your clan [(Gaius of the clan) Marius, (Lucius of the clan) Cornelius, (Marcus of the clan) Antonius, (Marcus of the clan) Tullius.)

But then what was the third name as in (Lucius Cornelius) Sulla, (Marcus Tullius) Cicero, or (Gaius Julius) Caesar? It can't have been a patrician/plebeian thing because Marcus Antonius and Gaius Octavianus were both from patrician families, whereas from what I understand Marcus Tullius Cicero was from a plebeian or equiiites family.

I know sometimes it was an earned nickname like Pompey Magnus or Pompeius Strabo. But if it was a nickname, why would it be passed down certain families (Gaius Julius Caesar, father to Lucius Julius Caesar and Gaius Julius Caesar,) but not others (Gnaeus Pompeyus Strabo, father to Gnaeus Pompeyus Magnus?)

[deleted]

Please delete if it doesn't belong here.

I recently got my great grandfather's death certificate (+1939) and it says that he was a "cool merchant" by profession. Unfortunately Google does not really give me a clue. This was registered in Asia, but in a British colony at the time.

Thank you.

I love historiography and I'd love to know what the different views on this particular topic are among historians and maybe get some reading suggestions along those lines?

I've always been fascinated by the question. The Nazi ideology seemed to me to contain this contradiction; caught between a desire to revolutionise German society and radically transform it, while glorying in notions of traditionalism and the "historical character" of the nation at the same time.

What's the generally accepted, mainstream view among historians these days? Where is the historiographical debate at this point? I'm vaguely aware that Marxist historians view Nazism as a deeply reactionary and bourgeois ideology, but I'd guess this argument is much less prominent in the discourse these days?

Assuming I speak eloquently and not use modern slang.

Obviously most civilians lacked access to many of these goods, and artificial supplements for things like rubber and oil were produced. But considering how long Germany was effectively cut off from any trade, and considering how most of the places such goods were produced in were at war, how did even the elites obtain these goods?

and have there been any nazi resistance groups after the fall?

I am aware of the fact that many of the political principles discussed in the US founding documents come from John Locke, the British Bill of Rights etc..

Compared to previously established national constitutions, just how different and groundbreaking was the US Constitution? Specifically, I was hoping someone could comment on the foundation of the legitimacy of the US government (ie. the "We the People" concept)