The Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed by, on the Allied side, representatives from the US, China, the UK, the USSR, Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. I've heard about what almost all of these countries did in the Pacific War (Canada at least helped defend Hong Kong and helped liberate the Aleutian Islands), but how did France fight against Japan? What I currently know is that the Vichy government let Japan use Indochinese bases and the Free French let the US use New Hebrides as a base, but did French forces ever fight directly against Japan?

I was reading Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World a biography of William Shakespeare which gives some minor background on the debate between Catholics and Anglicans. He mentions Edmund Campion who apparently after years of hiding was captured and tortured. After his torture he was pitted in a debate against Anglicans, he had no preparation at all and faced unfair odds but still utterly destroyed the competition on three separate occasions.

I was wondering what that debate or any between these two factions would have looked like. What were key points of contention between the two parties? What would their justifications have been for their positions been?

I'm reading Aztec by Gary Jennings and he's talking about how smallpox spread like wildfire among the Mexican population when the Spanish arrived. I know there are similar accounts in Native American history. Why don't I ever hear of Europeans suffering from diseases common to the Americas?

From what I understand, the Mughals were rulers of Persian origins that ruled most of India and by Akbar's rule, most of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

Also, from what I know, Akbar was the first Hindustani born Mughal emperor and lead the Mughal empire to its peak.

So do Indians then and today feel that the Mughals represent the peak of their greatness or look towards other Hindustani emperors such as Ashoka?

Does anyone know any good books or resources on this topic? I'm particularly curious about German soldiers who were captured and imprisoned on the Eastern Front.

This statistic particularly stands out for me "Out of the nearly 110,000 German prisoners captured in Stalingrad, only about 5,000 ever returned." What happened to all these men?

I'd like to know if any form of social security or other, tax funded, assistance was provided to immigrants in the United States between say 1865 and 1929.

For the purposes of this question social security can be any sort of free, or subsidised, benefit provided to immigrants at any point from their arrival in America, for example: housing, food, health care, education. unemployment insurance, pensions or other cash payments.

I'm primarily interested in tax funded benefits provided by Federal, State or local government, as opposed to charitable work done by churches, labour unions or other non-governmental organisations. I mainly have in mind immigrants arriving from Europe, in case people arriving from other places were treated differently (Chinese immigrants for example).

Thank you in advance // Plicated

I've been watching a lot of kung fu movies and the majority of them are set in the beginning of the 20th century. The hairstyle seems very common. Where did it originate from and what caused it to disappear?

Italy owned the German speaking province of south Tryol which they achieved after switching sides in WWI gaining the province from the much hated Treaty of Versailles. This makes Italy seem like an unlikely ally for the Nazis.

So why did the Nazis ally them? and what did the German foreign ministry or the German public think of this decision? It just seems unlikely and contradictory considering the German disdain of Versailles.

Who made that decision and why?

Many people in the south voted Democrat up until the 1960s and many northern states voted Republican also until the 1960s. What caused the change that generally southern and mountain west states vote Republican and northern and western states vote Democrat?

I realize this is almost an inherently unanswerable question, given that we don't know what what we don't know, and we don't know what we may eventually uncover that could radically change our perception of any given time period - but, as it stands now, are there any periods in, say, Roman history, or Chinese history, or any history, in which there's essentially nothing left to be gleaned from the sources and archaeology we have available to us, and we feel like we've got a firm and accurate grasp on?

Did prominent figures within the Roman empire try to justify the continuation of the Roman cultural identity, or was it largely accepted at this point that being Roman had very little or nothing to do with Rome?

The US was the only one to adopt the M1 Garand and have a semi-auto as their standard rifle. Why was it so difficult for other major countries to do the same when semi-automatic and automatic technology existed since WW1 (as in handguns and machine guns)? I know the Germans and Russians had semi-auto rifles, but why weren't they widespread like the US?

Which do you use? Why? Is it more important to use one over another? Does it give credibillity?

With all the talk of the chinese victory celebrations it occurred to me that I don't really know very much about the chinese side of WW2 in east Asia.

Is it even reasonable to celebrate "defeating" japan in this fashion?

In my, admittedly, not very well-read mind Japan was primarily beaten by naval blockade and aerial bombing of the Japanese mainland finished with the atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

What part did China play in japans defeat?

Spain seemed to be very focused on the Latam and South America lands, why did it let North America slip away?