I know that the educated people knew about the spherical Earth because of works left behind by Greek and Roman scholars. However, laypeople back in the day had no access to such knowledge, so what did they believe about the Earth's shape?

Was it normal for cruiser with limited anti submarine weaponry to operate alone?

I realise the delivery of the atomic bomb would have been classed as top secret, but why not at least attach a destroyer to escort her? Would it have made any difference to operational security?

Obviously the dropping of the nuke was a huge deal internationally, but what I want to know us whether the American public was entirely surprised. What was the reaction to the bomb like when it was first dropped?

I live in China. After the revolution, anything in public places named after the old guard was quickly changed to match the new powers that be. Why didn't New England turn into New Washington (or something similarly revolutionary)?

Growing up in the Deep South; I was fed a rather distorted narrative of the ACW. The war not being about slavery, William Sherman being literally Ghenghis Khan, etc. Part of the list of grievances against the North included the arrival of people known as "carpetbaggers" during Reconstruction, though why exactly they earned such vitriol was never really clarified beyond vague statements about them being greedy and profiting off Southern misery. Again, I'd like to figure out if I've been fed another falsehood.

So what is the true story of the carpetbaggers, and from whence did the hatred for them arise?

After the invention of plate, why did people continue using and, more importantly, romanticizing swords? Large, hard-to-carry ones seem like fairly unlikely candidates to become the symbol of medieval war when other weapons such as maces and spears were so much more effective, either because of their reach or against plate.

As the project of a tunnel under the Channel date back to the XIXth century, I was just curious if this had been the case ?

And if so, why was it dismissed ?

In Civil War movies, "Glory" and "Gettysburg" you see the positioning of the officers fairly well in the some scenes. I'm forgetting the title of the book, it was a manual that included a guide to dressing ranks and overall organization. It was written around the time of the Civil War. Each officer had a specific place on the field. If I remember correctly, Lieutenants would be on the wings near the front. Captains and Majors behind their respective companies. Colonels would stay behind the unit to direct their junior officers. NCOs would stay in a third file to direct the efforts of the men in the front of them.

In battles with large scale frontal assaults, like Cold Harbor or Gettysburg, causalities of officers would be just as high as the enlisted men. What happens in a situation where a company commander is killed and juniors officers? Obviously, higher ranking NCOs would take over, but a single Sgt Major can't control a unit. Would a loss of command rout a unit?

Also, the same text I referenced above stated that Sgts. were tasked with shooting deserters and those who fled the line of battle? I've never heard of this happening, but was this a role taught to Sgts. The same text says that the Sgt didn't carry a shoulder arm but would help reload for the enlisted men, fix weapons, keep order, and if necessary kill his own men.

How does Austria view its role in WW2? Germany fully acknowledges its crimes, and has worked to atone and educate its populace. What about Austria? The Anschluss had broad popular support in Austria, as I understand, and many Austrians rose high in the military and government of Nazi Germany ( and of course Hitler himself was Austrian). Does Austria consider itself having been part of the Third Reich, or a victim of it? And is that perception accurate?

As Brazil finds itself today in a moment of political instability, many people have been saying that street protests were the sole reason the Brazilian military dictatorship ended in 1985. Did the US had some part? Was it the economical instability?

There was such a race to be the first to land on the moon between the US and USSR, After the US landed, we flew more missions and landed a few more times, Why did USSR stop? Why hasn't any other country tried to achieve this and explore another area of the moon? Technology is far superior to what it was in the 60s and 70s, why don't we continue to make trips to the moon and setup a station like the ISS?

A standard call & response we hear in America is "I was just following orders" - "So were the Nazis".

Let's say you're a blonde haired, blue eyed specimen of Aryan perfection, and you actually GET some orders. You're not so thrilled with said orders. Was there any kind of process for soft-hearted yet still very much Aryan folks?

(minor edit: typo / clarity)

This question may seem a little broad, but a game I'm making takes place in 1950, and I'm trying to make it as historically accurate as possible. A big part of that is knowing how different countries felt about each other, such as who liked who, who hated who, why did they feel the way they did, ect.

In the book The Dead Hand the author says that in 1982 the USSR had 1400 launchers with over 5000 warheads while the USA had 1047 launchers with about 2150 warheads. I know that the USA had many more SLBMs than the USSR but still the USA had significantly fewer launchers and warheads throughout the Cold War. I know that accuracy improves a warhead's destructive effectiveness exponentially and that the USA had much more accurate weapons, but was this enough to match the Soviets in terms of effective destruction?

After living in China for 5 years, I always thought it was interesting that China only has one Timezone. On the news today, a BBC reporter stated that the reason is because the royal family like to travel and would use the un-adjusted time to hunt early but still have time left in the day.

What is the story behind their timezone?

I am wondering if there is any actual reputable scholarly sources for this. Mostly I ask because when I try to google it, I get only extreme right-wing websites including some with overt nazi tendencies. And on the wikipedia site for this subject, there are plenty of people in the talk page noting how ridiculously biased and skewed the numbers presented are. So I am honestly just wondering if any professional scholars have a decent estimate for this. I put 'killed' in quotes because obviously there is a need to make sure that any death total was truly intentional by that government, and I put 'Communist' in quotes since I know it is a matter of some political dispute as to whether or not a given country's government could truly accurately be called that, even if it is commonly referred to as such by laypeople. Thanks in advance.

Also I want to note up front my intention is not to really "legitimize" attempts to implement Communist ideals, but simply because I feel a great skepticism about some of the more shall we say ostentatious numbers which seem to have become quite popularized.

A really awesome thing would be to try to track like killings by year as well, so we ccould say "the peak of killings was during X situation" and so forth. And maybe give some context to certain killing spikes which could help with understanding why they happened.