To me, it seems very arbitrary to use different acronyms for the same dating system. As a non-Christian I don't understand why it's an issue that the naming comes from Christian tradition.

I'm reading it now, and quite enjoying it. It seems to be about 80% research based on captured post-war documents, and 20% anecdotal from Shirer's time living in Nazi Germany.

With that mix (which Shirer acknowledges upfront), I can see why professional historians may dismiss it, but isn't there room for an interpretation of history that mixes research with the views of the "man on the ground?"

Thanks!

P.S. I recently finished "What is History?" by E.H. Carr, and in that light, am trying to understand how to better "do history."

From what I've learned, the US rose to become a world power after WWI and WWII because it gave out loans to many European nations? I'm wondering at what point the US rose to be on the same economic/military footing as the rest of Europe?

You know the scenes we see in the movies and on tv, opponents exchange blows for a long time before one gets the upper hand?

I read in the book "Calumet Beginnings" (written by a close friend of my mother) about the early history of northern Indiana according to this book the Grand Calumet River in Indiana a portion of it was dug out where the Pottawatomie Indians where they would portage their boats to Lake Michigan

I know some of his generals warned him about this, but how did Hitler expect to beat Russia when they haven't finished off England yet?

My impression is that such a period of time would be rather short. Even though the US has only officially declared war 5 times, its military has been continually involved in operations around the world from quite early on in the history of the nation.

Alternatively, what period of history was considered the least active for the US military?

I work in an ER. Anyone who gets so much as a paper cut pretty much automatically gets a tetanus shot unless they are a child with up to date immunizations. I was wondering if there were cases documented of tetanus infections after battles prior to the germ theory era and if so did that present a significant risk to the mortality rate among wounded participants.

(I was debating between asking this in /r/askscience and here. I chose /r/AskHistorians because this addresses an issue well over 60 years old. If the AWESOME moderators here feel this would be better answered in /r/askscience, please say the word!)

I know it's mostly historical fiction, but was Lu Bu real? And if so was he truly a strong warrior?

On religious grounds rather than race and skin color

I have always viewed Ireland as being in a kind of "stasis" before its conquest by ninth and tenth century Vikings. Obviously, this is not the case. I know that the Romans were very aware of Ireland, and that there was significant contact between modern-day Wales and Ireland in the Roman period. But I know very little of what actually happened in Ireland.

How was Christianity spread to Ireland? What was the impact of Christianization on greater Irish culture? Was the traditional Celtic belief system incorporated into Irish Catholicism? Were there economic implications of the conversion? Was Ireland more connected to continental trade and politics during the Christian era? Did the Roman withdrawal from Britain affect Ireland in any way?

Across early medieval Ireland, was there such thing as an Irish identity, or did the Irish only identify as members of various tribes and clans? Did the clan system even exist this early?

Did the Irish have knowledge of the Norse people before they were conquered by them?

The verse is 6:4 and is "The Nephilim[a] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of reknown."

Wikipedia notes several translations including "the fallen ones" and "giants." Did other cultures note such a group or is this uniquely from the Bible?

Why were the Jewish police so comfortable with their actions against their own people in Nazi Germany? What happened to them after Jews were sent away to concentration camps? How did they fare throughout the war?

Was there a difference in the way royalty would treat their bastards compared to everywhere else? Could they be allowed to take their fathers name later in life?

I've got a healthy amateur interest in the Spanish Civil War (I've read Hemingway & Orwell on the conflict and Beevor's history). I feel like I hear a lot about the Spanish generals as political actors, but I can't recall much discussion on their abilities as commanders- were any of them particularly talented as military leaders? Was Franco? Did the politicized nature of the conflict lead to incompetence at the top?

From my current understanding, it was the title given to the ruler of the Persian Empire. I've read other things that it was in Greek mythology or something along those lines. I was hoping someone could clear it up for me.