Hello, I'm trying to find the US public response to the USSR's success of the Venera programme, but it's like there's a dark void on the internet about this subject.

Thanks.

In his book "Africa: A Biography of the Continent", John Reader writes that

a) the prevalence of diseases and parasites that had evolved alongside humans prevented sub-saharan Africans from concentrating in large numbers to form dense cities until quite recently in history. One striking example he gives is the tsetse fly, whose vast territory prevented agricultural expansion.

and

b) that elephants were a major problem for subsistence farmers compounding problems of labour shortage and the arduous farming environment. Farming activity would attract raiding elephants and farmers were only able to hold them off if they lived in together in larger enough group.

Both these factors were major constraints on the population growth of Africa. It sounds intuitively right but is it just a just-so story?

By this I mean how the election results would have been in a free and open vote.

Obviously the threat of dropping the deadliest weapon ever invented in the history of mankind on one's city is a powerful incentive for peace, but did the US ever consider the possibility that the Japanese government would simply continue fighting? Did the US armed forces have an alternate plan to end the war in the Pacific?

Title.

Thank you for all your detailed and informative responses. This subreddit truly is the Black Monolith of Reddit .

We know that their literate numerical system was i, ii, iii etc. But how did they say it, if I wanted 10 fish, how would I say it? or any other amount for that matter.

Like with the roman salute they have and the Aquila's they have during the ceremonial march, or other aspects of their military and Ideology. Why was Roman culture prominent with them?

I've looked up this question in the FAQ but didn't find anything.

Was a land invasion of the entire state of Hawaii even plausible? Did they even have the resources available?

Did they agree with the governmental policies like segregation? Or the less legal but equally common practices like lynching and burning people and taking scraps of the body home as souvenirs. Or we're they even on board with racism in general at all?

I seems to hear a lot about historical figures who weren't European and get a lot of respect like Alexandre Dumas. Were other races seen as equals there back then?

Assuming that this height difference is expressed amongst modern Europeans and Quechua people, did it exist in the 1560s? Were Spaniards noticeably taller than the natives they subjugated?

I mean, was this normal back then?

I know there were two companies involved in the construction of the transcontinental railroad, one working from Omaha toward the West and the other working from Sacramento toward the East, and I know that they met in Utah. However, when these two companies met, did they just connect the one set of railroad tracks? OR, did they have a rendezvous and then continue constructing their set of tracks to their final destinations?

TL;DR One set of tracks OR two sets of tracks that were side by side?

I am searching a topic for a 600 level course on the enlightenment and wanted to do museums but thought, were there museums in the enlightenment?