Lately, the alt-right has been pushing the following narrative:

• The average soldier was as racist as the day is long.
• They weren't the slightest bit opposed to fascism, just to imperialist expansionism.
• They would have therefore been perfectly amenable to the idea of a 'white ethno-state' in the USA.
• Therefore, WWII having had anything to do with opposition to ethno-nationalism and racial supremacy is hogwash.

I've seen this pop up multiple times, and I've also seen it applied to Partisan resistence fighters from countries such as Poland. How should we approach this revisionist narrative?

Considering that AFAIK Japan's leadership intended to make a last stand in the home islands, thus warranting the US at least planning Operation Downfall, did they make any moves to retreat from other theaters than the small Pacific islands? If not, why?

Good day historians. My question to you today is - Was Hirohito aware of the horrendous activities of his armies, such as rape and torture of prisoners? Its my understanding that he was allowed to remain emperor of Japan after the war partially because he seemed to be unaware of the extent of the heinous activities of his army. Is it really possible that the emperor was spared entirely of the grizzly details of human experimentation, slave labour, chemical weaponry, or ruthless pillaging which his own troops were inflicting on hundreds of thousands of people all over the theatre of war for over a decade? It seems like much of what was going on was public knowledge to people in Japan itself. Thanks for any answers on this - I'm very intrigued by it. I feel like he should have been punished, but I understand that the allies wanted to use him to keep the peace in occupied Japan.

Hello! I'm writing a school essay on how the imperialist perspectives of Africa shaped the modern culture and perspectives of Africa. I'm focusing on West Africa, particularly Igbo culture in/around Nigeria.

I have found some pretty good primary sources from the 1960s to recent times but have struggled finding any primary sources from early imperialism.

I am just looking for any kind of western media article on Africa from these times that I can analyze for rhetoric that may influence western perspectives of Africa. Does not have to be related to anything above, just from that time period.

That being said, I have used all of my school's databases and even tried google and other (sometimes sketchy) websites for old articles and have not found much.

Does anyone have any resources for free articles from this time period that may include western perspectives of Africa!

Thanks in advance.

Ideally I'd be looking for a book, but a long article or series of articles would also be welcome. Again ideally, it would be a comprehensive treatment of the subject, but I understand it's a big one and recommendations for works narrower in scope (Taoist styles, Southern styles, Hui syles, etc.) would also be appreciated, though anything dealing only with one style or small family of styles would probably be too granular for what I have in mind.

If you're recommending something originally written in Chinese, a preferred translation to English would also be appreciated.

One of my students in China gave a class presentation on how, historically, the Chinese struggled to subdue the Vietnamese. One of the reasons they mentioned was that parts of Vietnam were matriarchal and installing a patriarchal government caused created tension and difficultly. I have tried to find this on the internet and have failed. Is there any accuracy to this statement? Are there any historical references which tell us about the difficulty of installing a patriarchal government in conquered nations which were matriarchal? I hope this all makes sense.

title

The claim is that the Statue of Liberty was originally a black woman, but the Americans didn't like that so they had the statue altered to be a more white-looking woman.

Is there any truth to this claim?

Me and my dad were arguing about Christopher Columbus and weather or not he was a slave trader rapist and/or murderer. I decided to look it up and couldn’t find anything conclusive, can anyone help settle this debate for us?

Hey there,

I hope I don’t word this in an offensive way, as I don’t mean to be.

In my experience a majority of Mexicans aren’t “white” so I’d assume that means they have indigenous heritage as well as however much European. I understand everyone will have differing levels of mixed heritage.

Does this mean that their population was less ravaged by disease or genocide? If not, does this mean they didn’t intermarry with the Europeans who came to Mexico and their population bounced back?

How everybody view about this words?

The Russian ships use Geisler fire control instruments to centrally control firepower. The Japanese ship reported the distance to the gun positions with a small blackboard, and each gun position XJB output firepower. The Japanese fleet's ability to suppress the Russian fleet was basically Shimose gunpowder output by small and medium-caliber rapid-fire guns within 3,000 meters. However, after the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese navy, including the Japanese Navy, did not have a superstition about the experience of the victorious side in the Battle of Tsushima. Instead, he learned from the Russian Navy to engage in centralized fire control.
Japan’s own survey of the literacy level of conscripts in the Russo-Japanese War showed that soldiers who nominally completed elementary education would not count as elementary school mathematics. function? Whether a linear equation in one variable will be solved is a problem.

I have always been told that England's feudal system post Norman conquest was simply

Peasant,knight,baron,king

However, outside of my education I have been told that the feudal system was in fact

Baron (or similar small land holder), count, duke, king, Emperor

Who is right here, what feudal system was used in England and what exeptions were there?

Obviously this is quite a broad question, so I may as well note that I am principally interested in Western Europe and North America. I'm familiar enough in general terms with a few of the major conflicts of this period and region in operational terms (e.g. the Crimean War, Italian and German Wars of Unification, American Civil War), but I've never been that up to speed on the particular tactics involved. A few sub-questions I guess, just to make clear a few of the things I'm angling at:

Thinking purely technologically here, quickly if at all did the introduction of rifled muskets and artillery affect tactics, and ditto for breechloading?

How far was general 'quality' of troops (in terms of training, mainly) a significant factor? So for instance I'm aware the American Civil War gets cited as a case of rifled muskets not significantly affecting battlefield casualties compared to say the Napoleonic Wars, but would the militia armies of the Civil War be particularly comparable to some of the better forces of the Napoleonic period? Would a more viable comparison be to the Crimean War given that the armies involved were the direct successors of the Napoleonic forces?

From Star Wars to Eve Online, many science fiction settings imagine that combat between spaceships follows a set of rules that resemble real-world naval combat:

• There are a variety of ship sizes named after real-world naval roles (frigates, destroyers, capital ships, etc.), including small fighters launched from carriers
• A well-prepared fleet includes a variety of these ship classes to leverage the advantages and disadvantages of each class
• Larger ships are less maneuverable, relying on turret-mounted weapons, while smaller ships may be agile enough to evade those turrets and employ fixed-direction weapons
• Ships employ a mixture of bullet-like weapons, guided missiles, and (in some sci-fi) "energy" weapons that may look like beams or bolts

Of course, there are also sci-fi settings that imagine very different sorts of space combat that break all these rules, but this naval-like model is so widespread it can feel like the default choice for sci-fi these days.

Star Wars is the earliest example I know of that used this concept of spaceship combat, but did it originate these ideas? If not, who did?

Even when the sci-fi setting as a whole is not intended to be "hard" sci-fi, the "realism" of space combat seems to be important. Star Wars has magic-wielding monks, but its spaceship combat is less fanciful. Do we know why "realistic" space combat became so important to the genre?