Is there a best estimate, a consensus, and/or competing theories? How did we come to these conclusions? Thanks in advance!

(Apologies in advance if this question isn't acceptable here, but it didn't seem to be dealt with in the rules or the FAQ.) I'm looking for a book dealing with Konrad Adenauer, the economic miracle, Denazification, the reaction to such an overwhelming defeat, and so on.

I own Tony Judt's Postwar, which I think might be relevant - but it's so long! If someone could point me to specific parts, that would be great.

I've been looking for information about how bilge pumps worked before there was such a thing as steam or deisel power. Unfortunately, bilge pumps are still very much in use and more modern results have stymied my researches. I'm thinking the age of the great sailing ships (16-1700s?) but I'd be interested in other kinds of ships as well.

I'm mostly interested in practicalities, including diagrams if I can get them. Water obviously came in everywhere, but a pump can't be everywhere. Were there low points in the hull for the water to congregate and the pumps to sit in?

There are references to "elm tree" and "bucket chain" pumps, but I haven't found any illustrations. How were the pipes that carried water made to be watertight and yet still survive the shifting and stress of vessel being acted upon by water and wind? I've also come across some references to valves. It sort of sounded like they were check-valves, (to prevent blowback from the waves) but that can't be right, I don't think? Brass works weren't sophisticated enough for checkvalves, were they?

Thanks for all your help!

I would especially like to see a diagram of the cross-section of a hull to get a feel for how the system was organized, if any such thing exists.

Lady Jane Grey lost her throne due to the machinations of Privy Council factions as much as anything else, as I understand it, but there did seem to be general public rejoicing at the accession of Mary, even though most of the people must surely have known she would try and reconvert England.

Was it purely a case of "Jane just doesn't have royal blood"? Would people really welcome a "bad" queen over a "good" one, just because the "bad" one had the right genes?

You can talk more broadly about the subject of the "rightful" monarch if you wish. It's something I've noticed in a couple of famous medieval-based fantasy series; for Tolkien, the royal blood is everything. Aragorn just rocks up at the royal palace at Gondor, flourishes his sword and everyone instantly rejoices at the return of the king, despite them having gotten along quite nicely without one for centuries. The only dissenters are the evil, power-hungry current regent, Denethor, and his overly-proud son Boromir.

Move to the more modern A Song of Ice and Fire, and the common folk don't care two beans who's king or queen as long as the harvest comes in and they don't get their house burned down by one of the warring factions. Gossip about the goings-on at court is treated more like Hello! Magazine than important matters of state, and some probably don't even know or care who the king is.

At which point were the Northern and Southern US states first considered as the different cultures we know today? Did this happen during the Civil War or was there a distinction earlier? When did the Mason-Dixon Line become the "border" between the two? I have never lived in the US so please forgive my ignorance if this is considered common knowledge.

a lot religious people complained about Noah deviating from scripture and that came out this year

Also if you could find the Thomas Jefferson bible that would be cool <3

Heard my old history teacher say this once, and I'm curious to how accurate it is.

Edit: He was meaning it in the context of how it was viewed in Britain by the British public, the way in which the British had to fight The Americans (in both conventional and non-conventional ways), in how vague the actual borders of American resistance were, and in how the Americans needed to only keep fighting.

Whereas the British needed victories to keep support for the war, needed to send supplies over seas, where unfamiliar with the land, didn't always have clear goals, etc.

Is that accurate? If so in what ways?

Alternatively put: has an aircraft carrier ever been sunk by cannon fire alone?

As I understand it, the coming of the aircraft carrier in WWII pretty much put an end to battles where ships saw each other, I'm wondering if a surface ship ever got close enough to hit a carrier with its main armament to sink it.

I was speaking with a friend of mine and she had mentioned that her grandfather served in world war 2 in the pacific and that her family had a few items that he had collected during his time there. Here is an image of the display they have in their house.

imgur.com/gallery/VhQCgJv/new

Some of the items I can identify. The flag is a good luck flag given to most soldiers at the time. I believe it is backward as the text on it seems to be running in the wrong direction. One of the bills is a 50 Centavo piece issued by Japan as currency in the Philippines. Unfortunately this is the only image I have so I cant get a closer look at what the rest of the items are.

What I am most interested in however is the story that went along with these items. My friends family claims that their grandfather picked these items up in Nagasaki after the dropping of the second atomic bomb. One week after the bomb dropped. To me this sounded off. As I understand it was a few weeks after the bombs fell that Japan surrendered and much later before American troops entered Japan. They where however insistent and so I started doing some research.

What I found was that as Nagasaki was a large port there where Allied POWs being held there and that some of them had been killed by the bomb. My theory is that he was a prisoner of war at the time and that is how he was in Nagasaki after the dropping of the bomb.

This is where I would like some help from the history community. Where can I find more information not only about the pows held in Nagasaki but also a time table or activities log of when Allied troops entered Japan and what they did there. For instance where there large garrisons in the country and could items like these have been acquired then.

One final note is that the grandfather whom had collected these items had passed away some time before. He had developed cancer and I believe this is where the families insistence of him being in Nagasaki comes from. In other words radiation caused his caner.

Thank you

I've always seen references in movies and books about this and have always wondered whether there was a deep meaning behind this gift or just a random trend throughout society.