I've heard and read very little about this conflict, and was curious about the difference in technology readily available. Did the Japanese have better weapons, more weapons, or both? And what was the standard set of tools and weapons they (the enlisted men) would carry?

I'm wondering what the U.S. was doing in Korea during WW2. Were they simply a deterrent to Japan? Were they a contingency that was ready to invade Japan? What units were there?

My grandmpa was there from about mid 1943-1944 in the signal corps as a TEC 5. I'm just looking to understand what his unit's mission might have been.

Thanks

What qualifications or skills were sought after for tank crews when new Russian recruits signed up?

Given that the Soviets often had to use force or the threat of it to keep their allies in line, and the entire bloc utterly collapsed the moment the Soviets were no longer able to use force to keep it together, would the eastern bloc actually have been of any use to the Soviet Union in case of a war?

I tried searching but didn't turn anything up, so I thought I'd ask.

I was in a conversation with a co-worker a few minutes ago where I joked that white rice should technically be "european-american" rice, which launched us into an intriguing discussion of where humanity may or may not have originated from - which, according to secondhand sources, might have been somewhere around what is now modern day Iraq (whereas I originally thought it was someplace in Africa).

Recognizing there may be complications in terms of defining what a "human" is and where a particular iteration was born, is this true? Where did the spread go? Second-hand question: Is there like a video or gif or some kind of animation showing the spread of humanity from its origin point to the rest of the world, and its progression to present day?

Thank you! :)

Every time there is a major natural, or man made, disaster we now have organizations around the world raising funds and aid. Has this always been done? Or is it a product of the 20th century and the greater global awareness and connection of today?

There were a lot of heresies after the ecumenical councils; the monophysite controversy being one of the most famous. Considering the ecumenical councils, including Council of Chalcedon, was sponsored by the Empire, did the people deemed as heretics still see the Emperor as what he was?

Additional question which piques my curiosity: when they see the Emperor as "Christ's regent", which one that they believed?

• Did they believe that the seat of the Emperor is the seat of the God's regent, meaning anyone who took the throne of the Empire is seen as holy, because it's the seat which is holy (which would make Julian the Apostate, who was famous for being a pagan, still holy)?
• Or... did they believe that it is the personal piety of the Emperor himself which signifies his position as a God's regent on earth (which would put Julian out of the list)?

If possible, I'm curious in knowing the perspective of both clergy and laymen. Thanks!

Hello, can anyone give me confirmation or some info about a greek city that used to kick out the citizens once they started to get older? I seriously don't know if I dreamt that or read it somewhere. Thank you.

I had a professor once say that Native American tribe names were basically neighboring tribes saying "Those guys over there" in their own language. Was never sure if this was actually the case.

Based on the Arabic histories of the event, the battle was singularly massive, with a staggering death toll on the part of the Byzantines. For figuring out how much of the later account was history and how much was hagiography by the victors, have modern researchers found evidence on the ground to support some/all/none of that account?

Has the location of the battle been pinpointed for instance based on bones, artifacts, etc from the battle? From what I can find there hasn't been any archaeology on the subject and not a lot of physical traces to back up the Arabic chronicles, whereas the Byzantines seem to awkwardly omit any mention of the battle at all.

I would like to write an article on how black markets have helped some economies or industries come into existence that might not have otherwise. I'd like to focus primarily on those black markets that existed to avoid governmental controls, taxes, and competition -- not those which existed to support criminal activity (i.e. those that sell stolen goods).

I've been trying to research this topic myself, but what I've found is largely convoluted, poorly written, or unhelpful.

Do we know if there were any groups or individuals in the Aztec, Maya, Olmec, etc empires who opposed human sacrifice? I get that it was an important part of the culture, but it would seem surprising to me if everyone in those societies simply accepted such atrocities.

On the other hand, I understand if we don't have enough evidence to know for sure.

There's a chapter in Tacitus' Germania which goes like: "the Cotini, more to their shame, also mine iron." (Germania, 43, translated my Harold Mattingly) The explanatory notes says that the "more to their shame" comes from a Roman perspective - slaves did the mining.

Surely one tribe cannot be responsible for the entirety of the iron produced in Germania? On the other hand, from what else Tacitus writes, I cannot imagine the Germans having the centralisation to mine iron in vast quantities that was needed. I also cannot believe that the Romans would supply the Germans with iron and arms - a group of people that threatened their way of life.

As an extension, how would, say, the Gaulish, Brittonic and steppe tribes get the iron that they needed? I can imagine the Gauls and Britons having a stronger central government than the Germans that was able to co-ordinate mining (since they had more elaborate power structures) but not the nomads.

I'm listening to the audio book of Ben McIntyre's Operation Mincemeat, which is a really engaging story.

I've reached a point that discussed briefly a senior intelligence officer/analyst who had Hitler's ear. He wasn't with the Abwehr, rather another intelligence organization.

But then, the book talks about how this individual hated Nazism, and was believed to be deliberately giving misleading information to Hitler in order to thwart the regime. McIntyre then wonders whether this man believed the faked documentation planted by the British was indeed fake, but passed it on to Hitler anyway (while giving it a ringing endorsement).

Apparently he was friends with most of the members of the Scwarze Kapelle (Black Orchestra), and after the failed coup attempt in 1944 was giving a public, kangaroo trial and executed in gruesome fashion (hanging from a meat hook by the throat).

It's unclear what his name is, and I haven't been able to find anything online. It's something like Alexis Baron von ?? (I think the last name starts with "r" maybe?).

I'm hoping someone here knows who I'm talking about, and can talk more about him. How much evidence is there that he was deliberately duping the Nazi regime, including Hitler directly? Do we know why it took so long for his deception to be discovered (to the extent that it was)?