So the Beatle's Back in the Ussr was kinda a play off Chuck Berry's Back in the USA. Beside that, when the song was released it was the height of the Cold War. Was there an uproar because of the song or did people not really care?

Just to be clear, I am aware he lost faith in Hitler by 1944. My question is if he believed in Nazi ideology from the beginning.

I remember hearing the number of American soldiers that died during the 6 months preceeding the d-day was higher than the number of casualties of the d-day in the tv series « Band of brother ». How accurate is that ?

I heard an anecdote basically saying that "white only" restaurants only applied to American blacks, not people actually from Africa. Is there any validity to this?

I just want to know because its been coming up in the news with the UK and other places a lot lately.

My flatmate and I have been trying to figure it out, and we guessed it had something to do with the British Empire and how the English language was spread around the world, but we're not entirely sure because of the spread of other large empires around a similar time.

Obviously Italians nowadays speak Italian, bu what caused Latin to fade from popular use? Was it the Lombards, Byzantines, or some other invading group?

Thank you in advance!

So I'm an atheist and my dad is Catholic. He always cites this story as proof, but the story sounds fishy to me. Is there any evidence of this phenomenon happening outside of allegory? It's a fascinating story and it goes like this "on October 1917, attended by 30,000 to 100,000 people gathered near Fátima, Portugal." What is the historical evidence of this event occurring?

Thanks in advanced. I was told this sub is great for history stuff. :)

I'm currently reading Tom Holland's translation of Herodotus and it's been a blast. It's obvious from his books that he knows how to write, so I figured his translation would be enjoyable, and it is. But most other translations of classic texts I've tried to read were dry, stilted, and boring. It's hard for a non-historian to know whether this is the fault of the original text or the translator. I get the feeling sometimes that idioms and references that a contemporary reader of the work would understand are translated too literally or not explained enough for a modern lay-reader. At least that's my speculation.

I've read some Penguin Classics and been generally disappointed. (The poor paper and printing quality doesn't help.) I've considered Loeb Classics, but since many of them seem to be almost 100 years old, I'm hesitant.

I'm mostly interested in Greek and Roman sources, but I'd be interested in reading anything from any period in any area. I'm hesitant to even name some of the books I'm thinking of, because I don't want to limit suggestions to them. I'll read any important text if there's a good translation.

Thanks!

Or did early Christians ever have have a belief that the gospel was a direct revelation from God to Jesus, kind of like how Muslims believe the quran was dictated by the archangel Gabriel to Mohamed?

I was wondering if the term "Comrade," as a term for a specific person of the general populous, was, in fact used in day-to-day speech in Soviet-era Russia. I can see it being either a piece of propaganda from the west or a miss-translation of another term. It is used today as a quick way to identify that a character is either from or in the USSR, but it doesn't seem to me that it is congruent. I never hear any older Russian characters use the term "comrade," or even the few older Russian's I have met myself.

Was it a gift from heaven(*) given his efforts to get help from the US over the preceding 2 years?

(*) So to speak of course, no disrespect.

By economic war, I mean a country who is actively using economic forces to directly and maliciously harm another country's interests. I view this as different than competition, where there is a give and take involved, and in which outright maliciousness would degenerate one's long term bargaining position.

Apologies if this is common knowledge or has been covered here before. I'm on my phone, making it hard to effectively search the subreddit.

Oftentimes when I think of WWI artillery I think of the massive barrages that preceded infantry engagements in the trenches of the Western front. However, given that the Eastern front was much more mobile, what role would artillery play?

When I hear about North Korea and the concentration camps present there, I am horrified by how little the rest of the world seems to care about stopping them. The information is there, but few people actually know anything about it. The news doesn't report it, and there is little movement to stop it.

Which made me wonder how much the rest of the world's general public knew about concentration camps in Germany during WWII.

Was it public knowledge? Was it reported on? How proactive was the public in stopping it?

I just came back from a holiday in Greece where it is 40° Celsius at the moment and expected to get even hotter in late july and august. It's next to impossible to do any manual labor outside during the day. Athens (again) opened up airconditioned public buildings as shelter for those at risk of heart disease.

Were temperatures the same some 2500 years ago? How did the ancient Greek handle it?

I just finished reading Dick Winters memoirs. Was wondering if anyone had any similar memoirs they could recommend from the perspective of US GI combat soldiers. Checked out the sidebar book list but didn't have much luck. Thanks!

I just learned of this recently on a show about Alaska. I never heard anything about it in any history class. I've asked my friends and the vast majority had never heard of it either. As the only WW2 battle fought on American soil why is this so often glossed over or ignored?

What were expenses like for a medieval king, or the nobles who served under him? Household expenses, weapons and armor, fortifications, any fighting men they employed, etc...? Which sets of expenses would tend to be larger, and which smaller?

Also, how did they get the money for this? I'm under the impression that the subjects would often pay with harvests and labor. The labor could obviously go towards working on fortifications; the food also could be put to good use, but how did they choose to use it?

Expenses would also go up a lot in wartime, what with the need for soldiers. How much of these extra expenses were accounted for by raiding the treasury, and how much was from demanding extra revenue? And was the extra revenue part of "the deal", or did it have to be negotiated?

Let's say we're talking about France in the 1200s, but if you know about somewhere else or "in general" then don't be afraid to speak up.