American here. I consider myself an amateur historian. I've recently started dating a woman who was born and raised in Canada. She claims that she was taught in school that the Pearl Harbor attack was deliberately allowed to happen by the US government in order for the US to wage war. At first I couldn't believe that this was being taught in school. But then it got me thinking... Am I wrong here? Is there any hard evidence to back up her claims?

Samurai and Western late medieval/Renaissance armor sees to leave the back of the legs bare. Would this not be a vulnerable place?

we understand its chemical properties today but when we first discover it as cave men what made it valuable then.

I'm interested because while these countries all had the same type of government, they weren't fully within the Soviet sphere of influence like the Warsaw Pact countries were and were more often than not at odds with one another. Would criticizing one of chairman Mao's or Tito's policies be seen as enough of an indirect criticism of the Soviet Union to get you locked up or worse?

I find it interesting, because the Middle East and China both had several large empires develop once more in the same areas, while after the Roman Empire, Europe never saw such a large empire ever again.

For example, how would a Scottish peasant feel towards a vague concept such as 'the English'? How would an Englishman react upon meeting a French peasant?

I'm not doubting the discipline or training of either side, but am wondering if the reason may be due to the British Army taking more of a peacekeeping role in the conflict, rather than actively hunting down rebels.

RAF defended successfully Britain, why couldn't Luftwaffe do the same?

If I remember correctly what I read Germany was producing some 2,000 fighters/month at the peak of their military industrial production.

Was is that their planes were technically inferior? Was it the pilots training? Was it their strategy?

Also, why was French leadership so openly confrontation with the United States during this time?

Did white families leave Detroit and New York City in droves because of hatred of their new Black neighbors, or did crime actually go up during this time?

Looking through history, we see terms that we now find anachronistic or even racist and bigoted that years ago were not only perfectly acceptable and common, but even used as a self-description by those minorities.

Over time, those minorities; racial, national, ethnic, religious, and even cultural, would take on those terms and use them internally as self-descriptors, but abandoned them later.

Essentially, it's the evolution of "Irishman", to "Irish-American." Also similar terminologies for blacks, different Christian sects, homosexuals, women, etc.

PLEASE NOTE I flaired this non-meta post as being posted by myself as a Moderator. Normally I do not do this, but due to the potentially loaded nature of the question and how it can (and likely will) invite poor comments, political rants, and even racism, I wanted you to know that this post will be monitored. As I said, normally I would never do this, but this is being done as a heads up.

I apologise if this topic is covered but I couldn't find anything specifically to this.

Historians of Reddit more versed in this area than me - would you say that the American civil war was primarily about the moral and societal aspects of slavery or the financial aspects?

(Basically was it actually about slavery primarily or was it primarily about money with slavery as the economic issue.)

Edit: spelling mistake.

Were one of the two more common in catholic or orthodox religions?

Hello. I know r/AcademicBiblical may be more apt, however the sub is frequently quiet and I am hoping that experts from other fields, anthropologists and scholars of religion etc, may be able to help here.

I am interested in the origins of monotheism and specifically the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I've read 'the basics' (Karen Armstrong's A History of God and Richard E. Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?) and Friedman's The Bible with Sources Reveled is in the mail as I type. However, before it arrives, I would like to get a simple low-down on what the mainstream, respected scholarly consensus or position is on the origins of worship of what is now known as the Abrahamic God. I know there were controversies over the whole 'El' issue and its origins in the Canaanite pantheon and where the Names of God in Israelite religion actually originated.

I am aware of and have great respect for the Documentary Hypothesis and its modern developments but as a layperson I find a lot of it confusing at times. How much of the biblical narrative is the result of political disputes between the priesthoods? Were the attempts to explain the 'El' issue just post-hoc explanations or is there anything genuine in them?

Please don't hold back on this, you won't be undermining anyone's faith or risking any treasured positions. I am concerned with ascertaining the truth or the closest thing that we have to it; no crackpot "IT'S ALL LIEZ!" or "100% ALL TRUE!" positions appeal to me. If you have anything to contribute then I greatly appreciate it.

Thank you kindly

From what I understand, both the Creole and Cajun people of Louisiana are French descendants, but I wondered what is the difference between them, and what historical events led to this difference.

Why were the middle ages romanticized in the 19th century?

Why have the Argentine and Chilean political cultures been different (despite some similarities, including tremendous British economic influence in the 19th and early 20th centuries plus World War I and II neutrality) throughout their history? Did it have to with Chile, compared to Argentina, a) having a smaller population, b) being more geographically isolated, c) receiving many fewer immigrants, d) having proportionally a much larger peasantry, e) having more mineral resources (like copper, nitrates, and silver), f) having an inferiority complex while Argentina has had a superiority complex, and g) receiving a higher proportion of German and British immigrants - known for their initiative and drive - relative to the population?

Plus, was the reason that Chilean elites had interests in manufacturing and finance as well as land (where Argentine elites had interests mostly in land) because of the greater presence of minerals in Chile?

British Columbia, District of Columbia... what's the significance of the name Columbia? Does it have any relation to the country of Colombia?

In the game Crusader Kings 2, whenever the Pope calls a crusade, you can usually find him leading the Papal army against the infidels. This seems...kind of odd, especially since they're usually 60-70 years old. I doubt very much this always happened as it does in the game, but did it ever happen at all? Or did the Pope just call the Crusade and let the other people do the dirty work?

And while I'm on the topic, what role exactly did the Pope play in the crusades? Did they organize troops, plan strategy and stuff like that?