Trying to read Storm of Steel and Junger says: "The shells with black smoke, which the old-timers called 'Americans' or 'coal boxes', ripped with incredible violence."

I searched Google and the only thing I discovered was that Americans called artillery shells "Jack Johnson" after the famous boxer. It would be pretty fascinating if he was so renown the Germans used the same term for the same reasons.

The line in question was "It's worth noting that Communism... has never taken over a free democracy. Voting seems to immunize a society against Communism." Said line was in Atrocities: The 100 Deadliest Episodes in Human History 1st Edition The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History's 100 Worst Atrocities by Matthew White.

(Edited, accidentally cited the wrong book by him when I copied and pasted the title)

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Like how common was it for people to just step away and have a sudden realisation that what was happening was so incredibly wrong, if so are there many individually documented cases of people experiencing this?

Im currently having a debate fellow redditors, and I was wondering why the U.S. picked those two specific cities to use the atomic bombs on? Why not the capitol? Why would have been the alternate choice had the U.S. not used the bombs to make Japan surrender?

I have some questions on how I can teach myself about medieval culture and the lives of these people in order to make my books as realistic as possible.

What kind of books should I read? What should I research?

Since gunpowder was invented in China and subsequently the cannon and the handgun, why didn't the rest of Asia (and Africa) use this technology?

To explain my question a little better:

For the Europeans to get these cannons and handguns, they must've gone through the Silk Road trade routes. This would mean they would have gone over Central Asia or around the Indian Ocean. So, a lot of Asia and most of the lands bordering the Indian Ocean should've have access to the most advanced military technology in the world from China.

Why didn't they use this technology for themselves rather than selling it off to the Europeans letting them take over the world (most of it). Why didn't merchants sell them to the governments of the various Indian and East African countries rather than the Europeans? Why didn't these governments buy these weapons directly from the Chinese? If they did, the Europeans might never have taken as much of the Old World as they did historically.

(I assume that the Europeans got their cannons from the Chinese and developed it to the advanced standards that helped them become powerful)

Was I able to buy any garments 'off the rack'? Was my clothing made for me? By whom? Did I wear hats of any kind?

[deleted]

The Yamato Dynasty has very few parallels in world history (perhaps barring the former Ethiopian monarchy) in terms of an unbroken lineage from a single family (at least 1500 undisputed years). Even considering Japan's neighbours in East Asia (China, Korea, Vietnam, etc.), no dynasty comes close to the longevity of the Japanese. The closest I can think of are the Zhou (perhaps 700 years of real and nominal control) and the Joseon (500 years).

How come this office was never usurped by another ruling house (like the Zhou were removed finally by the Qin) - was it due solely to prestige and ceremonial factors? Secondly, how was it possible for the dynasty to sustain itself in terms of providing viable heirs for such a long period (thinking perhaps of the various Capet branches in France)?

I understand this question may be a bit broad in scope, but I'm looking really for general factors in the Japanese political culture that would explain the phenomenal continuity in the Imperial Office.

Just let it be known I think the holocaust was heinous, deplorable, evil. I am just genuinely curious why the Nazis decided to build these elaborate camps with gas showers and such then ship people off to them when they were just going to kill them anyway.

I'm watching dragon blade right now and it says it's based off true events. I don't recall learning about Roman contact with the Chinese. Did they have any direct contact?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Maybe I'm just being naive, but the way I see it, these were men who had grown up with Alexander. They were tutored around him, raised alongside him, went to war, fought alongside him and followed Alexander to the edge of the world (by Greek standards anyway). Really, if that didn't bind them together and give them a sense of brotherhood and comradeship, then I don't know what will.

So why, mere years after Alexander's death, were they tearing each other and his empire to pieces? Were they all consumed by the same power hungry tendencies? Was it the treachery of one that turned them all against each other?

Why were they so willing to forgo all bonds of friendship and brotherhood and lose all that they had built? Certainly, not all of his generals and companions were childhood friends, but you would think that there was a certain sense of loyalty amongst them.

I'm probably being very naive and romanticising the politics and relations between the diadochi, please feel free to correct me