I'm watching JFK: A President Betrayed right now, and I'm trying to understand how Bobby Kennedy could possibly know that Georgi Bolshakov (under guise as a journalist) was a Russian spy. I understand how he could be used as an effective backchannel, but I don't understand how Bobby could have known his true allegiance. And, if Bobby did know that Georgi was a spy (which he somehow did), why wouldn't the government take action against Georgi, especially during this tense time of the Cold War?

Apologies if my understanding is a bit off. I'm very new to learning about this period, and I tried doing some searching around, but I couldn't find an answer. And if anyone has related books/documentaries to recommend, please do! Thanks!

I was watching the Smithsonian 'Apocalypse' series and the idea came to me. Is it the military who does it? Local villagers?

Hey, I want a readable book on how Hitler rose to power. I looked at the antebellum section of the subreddit book list, but none of the recommendations had descriptions. Could someone recommend a book and give some info on it so I can better choose which book to get. Thanks.

In the podcast The History of the Byzantine Empire, the narrator said something along the lines that in World War I an American soldier asked a child on a Greek island if they were Greek. The child replied by saying that they were actually Roman.

Understanding that the Byzantine Empire was actually the Roman Empire and that it existed in some form up until 1453, these people that considered themselves to be "Roman" up until the very end surely did not all become Greek, Bulgarian, or Turkish all of a sudden.

In the former Western Roman Empire, did all of the people suddenly identify as Frankish, Gothic, or some other nationality? In the Italian peninsula, the Roman Empire maintained holdings on the peninsula until almost 800. Did these Italian people that had been under Roman control for a thousand years identify as anything other than Roman?

Follow-up question: It seems that the Holy Roman Empire is often mocked by historians. They say that "it was neither holy nor Roman." However, when it was formed in the year 800 with the crowning of Charlemagne, wouldn't there have been many people at that time within the boundaries of the empire that still considered themselves to be Roman? Since Charlemagne was ruling over territory that had been under legitimate Roman control as near in the past as a few decades and, at the most, a couple centuries and contained people that may still consider themselves to be "Roman," then it seems to me that he had a legitimate claim to the title of Roman Emperor.

How large where some of the more notable colonies that the Greeks had established throughout the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea at their height?

Random technical question. I am working on a taxonomy for history and ran into the problem of how best to categorize the different regions of the world. On researching, I haven't seen a consistent categorization - it often seems to be the from the point of view of a Western Historian.

To explain a little bit more in detail, I see the following ways of categorization -

1. By continent, which is the broadest way of doing it.

2. By country, which is super specific but also seems to give me a pause since a lot of the countries have come into existence relatively recently.

3. By culture, shared culture or material culture (thanks to @RioAbajo's comment)

Ideally, I am looking for something in-between - if, I asked you as a historian, you had to fill out a form with the regions you study, what regions would you expect to see there?

So, is there a standard used by those in the field? Something which treats smaller European regions the same way as those in Africa or Asia (a lot of online resources seems to have detailed European regions but then will have a broad category called African History)

I understand that it is a broad question, but any guidance would be much appreciated.

Thanks in anticipation!

EDIT: Added a (3) based on @RioAbajo's comment.

It seems like in the height of the movement, there was a strong sense that black Americans were a part of the African diaspora and there were sentiments that they shared a struggle. Figures like Marcus Garvey were influential and many African-Americans seemed to emphasize kinship with Africans and their descendants globally.

I noticed nowadays there is not as much of a focus on pan-Africanism -- now the African diasporas seem to focus more on home country issues (eg. including black Americans in the US) rather than seeking out global solidarity. Is this perception accurate? If so, why did pan-Africanism lose traction?

We hear today about Arab-Americans being scapegoated for terror attacks based on their appearance/race, and the notorious history of what happened to Japanese-Americans in WWII is likewise well known, as is the lack of popularity of German language, culture etc. after the world wars.

One thing I wondered about was during the Cold War when communism was seen as a threat, was there any sentiment like this -- say distrust of Eastern European, Russian, Chinese Americans themselves or any other people whose ethnicity was shared with overseas communists, on the basis of being perceived as possibly more sympathetic to the enemy etc. Was there extra profiling/discrimination of ethnic groups because of that?

Or was it much different, since communism was an ideology who could not be tied to race, religion, ethnicity or nationality, so anything that McCarthyism focused was based on political views, not ethnicity that could be visibly displayed?

I just finished Tom Holland's "Rubicon" and I'm looking for something a little more modern before I dive into the immediate events after with "Dynasty." The two things I'm really wanting to learn more about right now are both WW2 related:

-The Eastern Front: from what I know, both the major powers here were particularly brutal in their treatment of each other on this front. I think I'm more interested in seeing this from a military perspective of tactics and strategies, but I also don't want to lose the human experience of the soldiers and civilians in the top-down view of the events since that is what tends to keep me hooked.

-Valkyrie: this is one of my favorite conspiracies in history and I'd like to know more about the players and possibly the previous assassination attempts against Hitler.

Also, while not necessary I'm hoping for a book with an audiobook version I can get on Audible. I spend a lot of my time on the road and like to listen when I don't have the time to read.

Thanks, /r/AskHistorians.

Play any WWII game (such as the one that inspired this question, Call of Duty 2) and you will be given the option to pick up the weapons of enemies you have killed. Was this a common thing in the real world, or was it frowned upon by commanders? Was this practice influenced by the relative quality of the guns produced by the fighting nations? (e.g, Germans being more inclined to take American guns or vice versa)

Is he a communist? Fascist? Something else all together? I was kinda perplexed on this.

Mary Beard's book, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, has been described as "sweeping" and "revisionist," with the New York Times boldly declaring her a "debunker" of historical myths. Now, I'm aware that Beard is one of the foremost classicists in the world, however does her book really present anything new? From what I've read of it, she seems to pander to the popular audience. Nothing wrong with that, but from my experience (which is limited mind you) popular history books never really present anything new.

I ask, how substantial is her book to modern scholarship? Is it worth the read, or am I better off reading an article or academic book she published? (For context, while not a scholar (yet) I prefer publications written for academics than those for popular audiences)

Also, where does roman rule fit into all of this? Is there an infographic out there that could explain the time line of the different ages? Where does the Renaissance fit in? I'm guessing it comes after the Middle Ages?

From what I've read I get the impression that Japan being more advanced than its neighbours in the region isn't just a recent thing. I've read things from Portuguese missionaries even from the 16th century that mention Japan being more advanced and 'sophisticated'. Is this correct, or am I wrong to assume Japan has been more advanced than its neighbours for the past few centuries?

If so, I'd like to know if there are any explanations as to what caused Japan to be different and be able to position itself above other countries in that region? Has the Shinto religion had any influence on Japan's progress?

[deleted]

Obviously he helped America during the Revolution. Why was he in America to begin with?

I've read from multiple sources that the Aztecs didn't have a prison system. However, I also know that they took many captives. Unless they were marched straight from the battlefield to the temple, I assume they had to be detained in some way for a time? Is the "Aztecs did not have prisons" statement only referring to the use of incarceration as a legal punishment?

I mean, they did push-ups or something like that to gain strength and get fit? I have read many articles about gymnós, but nothing about the way they trained.

[deleted]