Pre-war Japan was run by a military dictatorship. Like Germany, it lost the war, but has since become one of the most successful capitalist economies as well as experiencing major social and political reforms. To what extent are these changes the result of the consequences of the Second World War?

Such as, cannot say crime will rise and Al Capone will become a master criminal. Use time period where Capone isn't the head honcho he becomes due to Prohibition.

Did a quick wiki, and was overwhelmed with the complexity of the situation.

Edit: Should have been more detailed -- I guess what I am asking is what were the major reasons and new rules that were placed in the 80's that led to the transition from the Soviet Union to slowly become less of a centralized government and eventually dissolving.

Was it ever the case that one fine spring day in 1325, Jervis the plowman just up and thought to himself, "hey, this whole thing is bullshit!" Or would that have been inconceivable? Such a sentiment gets you an eyeroll and a tip of the fedora on Reddit, so common and banal that it is, but back then was it even possible for the average schlub, let alone scholars and bishops, to just have a full-on epiphany of disbelief?

Were their any scholars that managed to do so prior to the Renaissance (thinking of Giordano Bruno, for example)?

Or were your only options a) Rome; b) some heretical Christianity-based sect such as the Cathars; c) Islam, if the Turks came knocking; d) some form of occultism that wouldn't have gone so far as to swear off Christianity like today's neo-pagans do; e) ?.

From what I can tell, the Church enjoyed all but unchallenged ideological hegemony over everyone from king to beggar, the only competition coming from heretical sects such as the Cathars, hedge witches selling love potions to horny peasant lads, uppity local bishops and princes bucking under the yoke of Rome (who would never think to deny Christianity itself), and Islam.

I hope this question is not too broad or vague. I've been pondering it for a while.

It is said that history is written by the victors. What do those who lost have to say? How is the story told in their history classes?

Exodus 21:22-25 codifies the penalty for striking a pregnant woman. The NIV translation states:

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

There seems to be some controversy about whether the bolded text refers to the mother or the baby. It seems that either translation could be used by each side of the abortion debate to either show God's concern or disregard for the life of a fetus, and I have been unable to find a source that does not translate the passage in a way that doesn't serve their political interests.

Is there some way to tell from the original Hebrew which person this text refers to, or is it actually ambiguous?

I was browsing /r/HistoryPorn when I came across a photo with this caption "Propeller-driven snowmobile near Finnish/Russian boarder 1941. The swastika was used as the official national marking of the Finnish Air Force and Tank Corps between 1918 and 1945." Why did Finland adopt this symbol seeing how it was years before the Winter War?

After the second world war, the Nazi party couldn't influence/dictate the education of German children anymore, but did the victors do it? Or were there an independent group of professors/teachers/schools who made a new curriculum?

I'm 31 and over the course of my life time, I have seen the popularity of the King James Version decline significantly. This caused me to assume that up until a few decades ago the King James Version was the version to which the vast majority of the English speakers went. In other words, in my mind I assume that 90 percent or more of English speakers used the King James Version from the time of its translation until the past century. Is this a correct assumption? Obviously I realize that many other translations were published in the centuries between, but I guess I always assumed that they were used quite sparsely.
I also realize that this may vary quite significantly across the Atlantic and all over the world. Do any of you have any data for this? Thank you!

I've always heard it called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but Commonwealth is an English word. What did everyone else call it?

edit: to clarify did it lead to any of them being captured or was it mostly hearsay and fingerpointing?

I've recently been reading Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin books and in The Fortune of War, it is mentioned that all the American ships were crewed by "volunteers" - which I understood in the context to mean people who signed up willingly - which was different to the Royal Navy's approach. It seems from what I've read (and I understand O'Brian did his research) that new hands on a Royal Navy ship were either criminals or pressed into the service.

So what I'm wondering is the actual process involved in pressing crews. Could the navy recruit/press pretty much just anyone they liked (who was male and working class)? How did they go about the process?

I see a lot of posts on askhistorians that ask about the possibility of Ancient Romans or Chinese civilizations discovering the new world. Were there any notable Indian (or South Asian) naval empires, and would it have been possible for these Indian (or South Asian) civilization to discover the new world?

I'm not sure what ancient entails to actual historians but in my mind I'm thinking between Ashoka and the start of Mughal India.

Thanks!