So, I just found out that this exists: /r/TokyoTrials

I really have no idea why there could be still so much clamor about random war facts in the WWII right now (who's questioning for instance Stalin's management of famines or the two freaking atomic bombs casually dropped on Japan?), but from time to time I see this question arising again. Is it some kind of revisionist mumbojumbo or is there really some doubt about what it is usually portrayed as the Japanese brutal behavior during the war?

And also: why the hell it matters so much what Japan did right now? Sometimes it just blow up again like when they visit the WWII memorial shrine or when they talk about Chinese prostitutes. You don't hear that about other countries, but it may just be that Reddit loves to talk about Japan for whatever reason.

But this might break the 20 year rule, so yeah.

I've seen it repeated a lot that Blackbeard was actually very good to his crew, and when he'd board a ship, he would only resort to violence when the crew of the ship he was boarding fought back. Claims are that he never killed anyone who surrendered, or captives. He'd dye his hair and beard black, and just dress menacingly, and armed to the teeth to make himself look more threatening.

So, was that really the case, and if so, did most other pirates operate like that?

After the fall of the Roman empire, did any nobles/wealthy folk still use Roman armour in medieval battles? I understand that it may not have been as effective as its counterparts, but did they still wear it as a sign of wealth/heritage/to look intimidating??

Edit: I specifically mean in Europe, and not the Byzantines who carried on a lot of roman traditions.

One of my relatives, Dominick Fanning, was the Mayor of Limerick three times. He took part in the great Rebellion and was executed in 1651. He ended up with his head hanging above St. John’s gate for several years. How would I find out where this St. John’s gate was or is located? Was it in Limerick, London, or someplace else?

For example, the Normans adopting the French language and culture of the time, the Varangians being assimilated into the Slavs, the Gaelicisation of the Kingdom of Dublin, et cetera (without going too much into the Christianization of Scandinavia, which is another topic completely). It just seems odd to me that it wasn't the other way around (Norse culture being adopted by everyone else).

I've spent a little time this morning googling interracial marriage lawsuits, and haven't found any stories of such... but because there is so many references to interracial marriage in modern gay-marriage lawsuits, there's a lot of filtering that needs to be done.

Still, even when I take out the obvious keywords about gay marriage, I don't see any information about lawsuits forcing bakers or florists to to participate in them or to suffer some kind of legal penalty. All I can find is a case of a Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to issue a marriage license in 2009 (hardly "history"... more like current events).

Were there no cake bakers or florists who refused to serve interracial couples? Or did they refuse, but there were no lawsuits... or were there lawsuits, but because it was pre-Internet it's just hard to find historical articles on the matter?

We have the term "Greatest things since sliced bread!" but how great was sliced bread? Was it actually considered a huge deal when it first hit the market?

So as far as I know, Austria became an archduchy during the Holy Roman Empire period, to elevate themselves above other duchies. But my question is, why did they (Habsburgs) elevate Austria to an archduchy and not a Kingdom?

I guess more indepth question is, what does it mean for an independent realm to be a kingdom in medieval days? I know that Prussia was formed from the holdings of Tutonic Order, so formation or a declaration of Kingdom must have been possible. Yet we see states like Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Archduchy of Austria that were more than powerful enough to call themselves a kingdom but did not.

I'm reading Doctor Zhivago and I think it's a fantastic book but can't help but feel that it would be a lot more enjoyable with some background info. Can anyone provide a little insight as to what's going on in Russia during the early 1900s? There's a lot of philosophical talk about socialism, Marxism, etc., political talk, and I'm not sure how far back historically I need to know to understand what all the fighting is about. Who wants what? Who ends up with winning? What's with the October revolution? Thanks for any context you guys can add!

I've watched a number of documentaries and movies and read books about the Korean War recently and there seems to be a commonality with WW1 in that some engagements would have a heavy artillery barrage which would lift, (or airstrikes for the American side), and then a rush at the enemy lines. After this had failed so completely in WW1 and the 'creeping barrage' had proved a successful tactic, did it endure in later conflicts? If not, why not? I can't help but wonder if those Chinese infantry wave attacks were able to hit right behind a lifting barrage if the result of some of those battles would have been different. Thanks.

I was hoping to better understand what an actual black-face minstrel show looked like, the break-down of the performances, jokes and songs that would go into an average show. Ideally, a transcript of such an event, but that seems unlikely. Would love to find any and all sources; film adaptations/presentations, books, websites, etc. Thanks in advance.

I know slaves and free blacks alike had to provide documentation when in public/traveling, etc., but where did this documentation come from? Was it state issued or written by their owners/former owners? Were official seals used? Given the issues of state sovereignty in the Antebellum period, I'm assuming documentation varied state by state, but I don't have any basis for that claim. Do we have examples of fraudulent documentation? Thanks for the replies.

Colonialism left Africa in turmoil when it ended. I understand due to America setting up a constitution and system of government there was a much greater chance of stability than in African countries which are still often corrupt and tyrannical. I'm more interested in economic interests. Did separation from the British government mean that private British ventures and companies in America, which I assume in the colonies were the majority, were no longer considered British? How did the American economy come into being and sustain itself?

Something on par with the American Underground Railroad perhaps.

Probably the least interesting question that's been posted on this sub, I need to know this for an essay I am writing.

So I understand that Chief of Staff is an American term, but I believe there generally was an equivalent to the other major powers - Marshall for the US, Alanbrooke for the British, Vasilevsky for the Soviets, and von Brauchitsch / Halder for the Germans. In popular culture, the Chiefs of staff listed above are generally overshadowed by the theaters commanders (e.g. Montgomery, Zhukov, Rommel, Eisenhower), with the possible exception of George Marshall but his fame might stem more from his tenure as Secretary of State and the Marshall plan. So I was just curious about their role and relationship with other commanders

1.) Was the Chief of Staff generally considered the most senior general in the entire chain of command? Or were they seen as equals (or first among equals) of theater commanders?

2.) Were the Chiefs of Staff considered the most competent/important generals in their nation's military?

3.) What exactly was their day to day job? Since it seems that most of the time they would not be directly planning major combat operations.

4.) Were there any unique decisions made by the chiefs of staff that had decisive impacts on the war? (e.g. this is totally fake, but something like George Marshall was a key proponent of the Manhattan Project)

5.) [Germany Specifically] I had trouble pin pointing who the German equivalent of Chief of Staff because Halder is listed as chief of OKH and von Brauchitsch is listed as Chief of the Germany Army. Can someone explain the difference between the two - is Halder in the senior position of the two? Also, is my understanding correct that Hitler assumed the title of Chief of Staff from 1942 onwards?