I don't have a specific place in mind.

[deleted]

I've never understood why, some groups survived the genocidal colonization of theirs lands, while other groups were seemingly obliterated out of existence, why was this?

I read that the British accent diverged from the American accent and not the other way around. When did that happen?

How did the Union go about really ending the slave trade? As a layman, I'd imagine that plenty of Southerners continued to hold and trade slaves after the immediate defeat of the Confederacy. How do you even begin to stop a market that was so integral to that region's survival prior to the war?

So I just read the Wikipedia about the land lease-program to the USSR and I have an hard time putting the numbers in to context. I'm just gonna qoute wiki here and assume most of the numbers are in the neighborhood.

In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386[31] of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[32] 11,400 ?aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)[33] and 1.75 million tons of food.[34]

This all sounds really impressive butt I was hoping for some perspective. What if the USA decided to stay neutraal could the USSR produce enough food for their army and population? Would they eventually build enough jeep-equivalents? And would their overall fighting capability decline and when by how much? Any recommendations for good books on the subject will also be appreciated.

-Edit- Words, format.

I am very tempted to dismiss it as an absurd conspiracy theory conjured and fueled by neo-Nazi's, but it is interesting to note that the man was 93 and could reportedly not even manage to lift his arms above his head (important because he was found hanging from an extension cord hung over a window latch). The claim from historian Peter Padfield that the suicide note found adjacent to his body was written during his hospotilization in 1969 does intrigue me just a little bit as well, admittedly. There are many blaringly obvious counter-points to be made here, however, namely the question of why somebody should choose to wait near-50 years before releasing compromising information on British misconduct during the war - as these theorists claim he was trying to do.

*such

Gunpowder weapons are well known to have originated in East Asia, but I read on the Qing Dynasty wikipedia page that during the Qing conquest, the Ming Dynasty achieved a victory in 1627 in part due to newly acquired Portuguese cannons.

I've also read that the Japanese around the same time were purchasing firearms from the Portuguese.

Were European gunpowder weapons superior to Asian ones in the early 1600s? Did this continue to be the case until the modern era? What do we know about the relative quality of armaments during this time period.

Thanks!

How come the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World are all located in or around the middle east? It is quite obvious that the ancient civilizations was highly developed here, but surely there were other civilizations at that time that could build something magnificent. Didn't east/south east Asia or South America have quite developed civilizations for that time?

Like the title says, what's the historical significance? Besides those examples, I've heard the word used in reference to the Chicago World's Fair. Are these Columbias named for the same reason the country of Columbia is?

There's lynching, but could a group of white people, say, go into a black school and shoot everyone and get away with it?

I got sucked into the Wikipedia rabbit hole and ended up reading about the history of the Roman Coliseum. It seemed that many in Rome didn't know what is was used for and basically used it as a quarry to build other buildings. Considering many Romans didn't even know what the Coliseum was, I was wondering how much of Europe knew about the Roman Empire during the Dark and Middle Ages.

I know historians sometimes distinguish between a character "Socrates" we know from dialogues, and a historical person named Socrates. So how much of the dialogical Socrates is Plato, and how much is Socrates himself?