I know Britain was pretty exhausted by that point, but did they increase their participation against Japan once Germany was defeated? I'd also be interested to hear the same about any of the other western allies.

Was the Soviet's rise to power a complete loss for the Russian Upper Class, or were there some wealthy people who benefited from it, either from inside or outside Russia?

additionally, was there conflict over Sakhalin island? is there a reason it remains undeveloped? is it just climate?

I read through the rules and the FAQ topics under "War". I hope I'm on the correct side of the "any X throughout history" rule, and that this topic is not a repeat.

My question stems from documentaries and books I've encountered about the US fighting Japan in WWII and about the American Civil War. In both cases, the winning side is generally said to have won because of their superior production capabilities making a big difference over the long term. Based on these instances, despite the differing strategies of Japan and the Confederacy, it seems as though production is an insurmountably dominant factor. I am wondering if this is a kind of rule, and if there are exceptions.

If you continued your education afterwards please specify what you studied and for how long.

For how long have we been learning about art and literature by analyzing works that are considered to be pivotal? Does it go all the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh?

For context: This question was inspired by a conversation I had with a friend. We were arguing whether or not it's better to teach literature by analyzing "lesser" works in a series or to retroactively select pieces that can be defined as "classics".

Semi-related: Does the "classics" method of studying the humanities give a false perspective? Classes that used this narrative left me with the idea that the humanities spent a lot of time stagnant, only to be changed by a handful of influential figures that popped up every generation or so.

If Muhammed followed Jahiliyya before creating Islam, how was it that he created a religion so similar to other Abrahamic religions? Did he have some experience with Judaism or Christianity prior? If so, how? How many oppurtunities were there at his time to learn about other faiths?

How was federalism implemented and regarded in the early years of the union?

I've got Agobard's Liber Contra Iudicium Dei and Hincmar's De Divortio (still in Latin though). I was wondering if anyone here knew of any other good pieces from clerics giving opinions or analysis of the ordeal, or if anyone knew where to find some of the writings of Pope Stephen V. I'm preferably looking at the time period from ~800-1215.

I am reading the epistle to a 1603 edition translation of the Morals of Plutarch. In the epistle, it reads:

"To the Most High and Mighty Prince, James, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c."

I'm confused by a number of things in this. First he is referred to as both prince and king. Is this because he wasn't coronated yet at this point?

Also, he is listed as the king of several regions. First, France? What gives? As for the rest, I understand Scotland, since he inherited it from his mother, but what about the rest? It wasn't unified until later (I think around 1607?).

Thanks for your insight in advance!

Have we always worn clothes? Were we nudists at one point just because it was easier and then eventually some guy was like "look at this tiger fur coat over my junk, imma call these clothes"

More specifically, is there any chance that the bread broken at the last supper was pumpernickel?

When did English, an initially Germanic language, become so influenced by Latin? How did it happen?

Which is the first totalitarian government in history?

I recently visited the Holocaust museum in Washington, D.C. At one point in the exhibit, I saw a video where the German people were visiting the concentration camp and being told something along the lines (I have to paraphrase) that they held responsibility for allowing this to happen and they would have to be responsible for the rebuilding of their country.

I was really interested in reading the full transcript and learning who wrote it/said it. I was wondering if anyone here knew of the speech, could provide a transcript, and tell me who wrote/said it.

I am curious as well - what was the German response to this message?

It's hard to get a straight story talking to the average American. Most answers to the question take the form of demonizing the British and adopting the standpoint that the Americans could do no wrong, the taxes were tyranny, and the colonists' reactions were entirely justified in every respect.

Another source I read, however, claims that many taxes were instated to recoup the costs of the French and Indian war, which was largely funded by the British but instigated by the colonists. Most taxes were repealed due to the colonists' displeasure, but the tea tax was left to show some semblance of control. Additionally, the tea tax wasn't very significant. It's entirely possible that this version of events is blown out of proportion in the other direction to get shock value and draw interest.

I'm hoping some level-headed academics could help me out.

So I'm reading a book about he ten best generals in history and in Ceaser's chapter they mention while he was in Rome they got word about his or another general's army about to have their supply lines cuts so he hustled back to Gaul to support them. My question is how could they get word to Rome and have him make it back to Gaul before the attack happened?