Would they accept separate allies surrendering? Would the Japanese/Germans accept a surrender to one Axis but not the other? What were the occupation plans of the United States?

The Count of Monte Christo may be one of the most satisfying fictional tales of comeuppance, but though we regularly see stories of wrongful convictions being overturned, I've never seen a story of revenge against those who falsely imprisoned the victim.

I'd venture that any real life examples would have a much muddier sense of morality, but I'm still curious to know if this has happened in a way that was documented.

Were there any charges legally/morally? How big was her role in the crimes commited? How was decided which persons faced the trial?

I saw a picture of FDR at Yalta with Stalin, Churchill and other met. It was clear he was old and sick. I know he had not been well before making the trip. Is there any indication that he would resign or did anyone try to get him to resign due to his poor health before he died?

I had a friend from Manchester and it was a constant thing with him.

Surprise party with all his friends and family that he gets misty eyed over: "Quite nice of you?"

A guy tells story of losing his leg to a landmine: "My, that's awkward"

As I got older I learned this is really a British thing. Even so much to the point that a British regiment in Korea lost reinforcements when a British Soldier described a complete invasion as "a bit hairy."

Is there any historical basis to this? How did a whole island of people find themselves doing this so consistently?

Is there any specific reason that the HMS Constituiton was so successful in most of her missions, was it her commanding officers or was there a trick in her construction?

So I'm a huge Sleepy Hollow fan. I live right near where they film a lot of the town scenes too (Westchester represent!) but in this latest episode Ichabod talks about knowing some things about Japanese and Chinese culture.

I'm willing to call bullshit on the Japanese thing (unless someone tells me otherwise) but how much would Ichabod, who's from the American Revolution, know about China? What was China's relations to the West in that time?

Not entirely sure this is the right subreddit ... not even entirely sure what I'm asking. That said--

I am at an age where I have clear, adult memories of the Tienanmen Square protests when they happened in 1989. To me, it feels like it was "just the other day", so to speak. I recently saw a documentary about it, and about how Chinese censorship has led to a new generation of Chinese who know little or nothing about this event.

Since seeing the documentary, I have spoken with many Americans about the event, and I've learned that the vast majority of people who are too young to remember hearing about it when it happened (under 35 years of age, or thereabouts) ... also have little or no recollection of the event, either. People in their 40s remember it like it was yesterday; people under 35, mostly, never even heard of it. So, with comparatively little censorship here, our memory of this event is barely any better than the average Chinese.

This experience has made me realize that there is probably a whole litany of major historical events that are only known about, mainly, by people old enough to remember when they happened.

I wonder, how common is this? Do most major world events "disappear" within a generation, only to be maintained by historians ... or "re-"remembered 100+ years later, once they are considered (relatively) ancient history?

Is there any known/studied sociological implications/repercussions (eg, the burgeoning belief, as firsthand witnesses die, that the Holocaust was exaggerated or a hoax) How much do current socio-political trends tend to link back to major historical events of 30-ish years ago (eg, public distrust of government in the post-Nixon era)?

I realize now, that people entering college today, have no real memory of what the US was like prior to 9/11. What are we losing?

Like I said, I'm not really sure what I'm asking ... just that I've come to realize there is this mostly-invisible period of recent history that took place (for me, at least) after WWII, but before I was old enough to remember it first-hand ... and I'm just wondering what historians think about this.

ETA: It's like I've discovered this bright red line separating the generations, that no one else sees. Everyone my age remembers Tienanmen Square and--without ever talking about with anyone--we all assume everyone else remembers it. Now, I've realized that everyone under 35 is walking around with a big hole in their worldview, and they don't even know they're missing anything. Now, I want to know how many other hidden lines are out there.

I'm not saying that Ancient Rome is Nazi Germany, but the Romans elected tyrants and emperors, some of them were indeed dictators or madmen. Didn't Rome rely its economic growth on slaves and plebs, compared to Nazi Germany where somehow the people got jobs and some amount of wealth ? Didn't the Romans invaded the whole Mediterranean region, exterminating, enslaving and converting all barbarian tribes and other cultures from Eastern Europe?

I guess my question is this: what makes Rome so great compared to any other nation that is similar to Rome ?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Hello everyone!

I was under the impression that the North Koreans began the Korean war in 1950, but I'm reading through a Soviet letter that is saying the South Koreans were the initial aggressors. I can't get to a library today, so I've been relying on Google, but I'm not seeing anything to support this (although I haven't sorted through the millions of search results). I did find something about Syngman Rhee, and his threat to attack North Korea, but the site didn't go into too much detail. Was this a legitimate threat? Who was the initial aggressor? Was it a lame threat (a sort of flex of the muscle, without intention to swing, so to speak) or were the North Koreans genuinely preemptively striking? I'm made more curious, because of the fact that Kim Il-sung did go to Stalin and Zedong for a pseudo-approval some time before the invasion, which has me doubting the position of the Soviets.

I've been watching a few 'history of the world' series and was surprised to discover there have been whole societies that were thought to be completely peaceful (normally right up until they were conquered by a warlike neighbour) and it got me thinking as to whether the whole world has ever been without war. Even for like ten minutes.

If it has happened before, then maybe people will believe it can happen again?

I can't seem to find any online

I'm well aware of the fantastic advances in medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy (broadly defined) during this time period. However, as a budding scientific researcher, I'm interested in gaining more perspectives on the philosophy of science.

Discussion of philosophy of science in the Muslim world during the (esp. Umayyad, Abbasid, and Cordoba) Caliphates has always eluded me. As it is often taught in American universities and as it is discussed in American scientific discourse, the philosophy of science is focused upon Western and certainly more modern thought.

If anyone could mention any texts/thinkers/debates that exemplify or characterize strands of thought on this topic I would be really grateful!

The German and Soviet militaries of the time have reputations for ordering--or a least not fully preventing-- various lootings, rapings, massacres, etc. of civilians in the territory they invaded. I've never heard about the US or UK committing similar war crimes, but surely among the millions of deployed soldiers a few thieves, rapists, and murderers slipped through and abused civilians. How did the Western Allies deal with such cases?

Did they have a military-wide prevention and punishment policy already in place? Did let the immediate commanding officer deal with it? How far up the chain of command would such a sticky problem get kicked? Did they wink knowingly and just try to sweep the whole thing under the rug? Did news ever get back to the home front, and if so how did the civilians there respond?

I know that it was quite bad, like eating boiled tissue paper bad, but I kinda want to know how bad. There are some things that I've heard that I want some clarification on as well:

• That Koreans bowed down to Germans to let them live in their country
• Well, that they ate boiled tissue paper
• That pro-Japanese people from the colonial period stayed in power because of the Americans

Thanks in advance!