I know it’s a specific question.

My Oma (1930-2016), lived in Hannover from 1930-1950. She has a haunting story about the air raid that destroyed her section of East Hannover (just BARELY north of Kleefeld), where she and her family fled through the burning streets in search of shelter. The story is long, it may be a story for another time and place.

She said that she was carrying her infant baby sister (born May 1944), and feared she was going to die from smoke inhalation.

But from what I’ve read (maybe like 3 hours of real searching for answers, truthfully), there were no air raids in Hannover after 1943.

So now I’m trying to figure out if maybe she was in a different place during that time.

I’m just trying to establish a link between documented historic accounts from, idk, military or government sources and my family history.

If this is an inappropriate question for this sub, please kindly let me know. I’m trying to understand more about the lives of my dear German grandparents. It’s important to me.

Thank you, and I appreciate any and all informational answers.

I'm thinking in particular about Enrico Fermi and how he did lots of fundamental research up to creating the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction--and then went on to work on the Manhattan Project and help build the first true nuclear bombs.

In retrospect building and deploying nuclear bombs is, at least, controversial and there are many people who would point to the Manhattan Project as a prime example of a time when scientists and engineers should have just said, "No, it would be profoundly unethical to create something so destructive, I will not work on this." From my limited understanding, anti-nuclear groups formed after WWII, but I'm particularly curious if there was any controversy or soul-searching among the physics community (who presumably had some semblance of an idea of what was possible) before the war and the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A quick search for the causes of the American Civil War shows a lot of threads on the historical causes of the Civil War. I am looking more for an "on-the-ground", microcosmic perspective. For a typical Northerner in the Union army, what would he have said was the reason the war was happening? And what would have been his personal reason for fighting in the army?

I am also trying to take the temperature of Northerner "on-the-ground" attitudes towards slavery. Would he have said something like...

• A) "Slavery is morally wrong and Lincoln and the Union is fighting to abolish it. I think slavery is wrong too, that's why I'm proud to fight."
• B) "Lincoln doesn't want the nation breaking apart. Slavery is wrong, but the bigger issue is that the Union needs to be preserved."
• C) "I guess slavery isn't right, but I don't know what the big fuss is."
• D) "To be honest, I don't know why we're fighting. We don't have slaves in my state, but I don't blame the South for having them"
• E) "Slavery is in the Bible, and those Western territories should be allowed to have slaves."

Or something else? Which of these responses would have been typical of a Northerner? Would any of these responses be particularly out-of-place or egregious for a Northerner to express?

Simple question. What did they (the south) have to gain by creating the myth?

Seems like it doesnt need to be that elaborate.

If you are attacking walled city like troy for long periods you probably would have some rolling siege scaffolding and can hide someone or two or 3 in there.

My question especially concernes its effect on American trade and ideology. Did it contribute towards causing the American Revolution? And was there a change in the freedom of press in the colonies?

i was just scrolling thru google maps and found this weird border thing. Just curious

What was the attitude like? Were there pushes for recruits and materials? Was there any kind of propaganda related to the struggle? How did the public react to the loss of the colonies?

After the Second Empire Collapsed, and the Paris Commune was destroyed, it seems a return to monarchy was the likeliest outcome :

• A large fraction of the population was favorable to a return to a monarchy (1871 elections)
• Mac Mahon, a monarchist was elected president in 1873
• Henri de Bourbon seemed like a legitim pretender to the throne

Yet the 3rd republic was allowed to endure, why is it? I've read multiple times that Henri de Bourbon missed his chance because he would accept any flag other than the white one. Is the explanation this simple ?

Or were they just there for show for the western powers or something?

So I was listening to this podcast about the lead up to the world war from the Japanese side of things. It didn't really feel like what you'd expect.

(I understand if my understanding of the events is very amateurish. I am not a historian, this was just the general impression I got. I understand if all of this can be explained or was just my own misinterpretation)

Whenever they mentioned the Prime Minister, he always seemed to have less power than you would expect, like when one tried to investigate a bomb going off and killing a favorable warlord, he was straight up refused by the Military and had to resign his own position.

I was especially shocked when the Prime Minister was murdered by these naval guys, and then the people seemed to side with the terrorists by asking for their leniency in blood signed letters. And the naval guys got very short life sentences too.

I feel like this would be unacceptable in the US or UK, like even hearing Trump or Nixon murdered by a group of extremists being assassinated would drum up extreme anger against the opposing side. The chosen leader of the nation is at least somewhat sacred.Why was this not the case in Japan? Does this mean the head of imperial government wasn't respected at all, over a bunch of military personnel?

Even Tojo, who sounded very military, was almost pushed around by his own generals. mean, Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were prime ministers and top dogs of their armies, and Tojo should have been too by his official title. Why did so many not listen to their supposed boss?

Thing is, why did the Imperial Government seem so weak over its military, compared to seemingly every other nation in the war?

I guess in terms of waking up, or trying to set up business, without everyone having a watch how did that work? I know there were candles and eventually "knocker ups" who would wake people up, but was time something that was quantified throughout the day? Could you ask someone what time it was? Or was it just kind of a "the sun will go down soon" kind of thing? Thanks in advance, I know this a very broad question.

While the myth is exciting, all I really know is he was probably some Gaulic or British Roman at the end of the 5th or dawn of the 6th century. Do we know who this mystery man could have been?

In The Pacific War by Saburo Ienaga, he writes that the "ultimate objective of the war, including the fighting in China, remained the destruction of communism. In military and diplomatic moves, in the implicit assumptions behind policies, always the overriding goal was to eradicate communism." (84) He argues that Japan's neutrality pact with the Soviet Union was out of strategic necessity, with Japanese leaders considering the USSR as the ultimate "absolute enemy".

Was Communism truly such an anxiety for Japan's wartime and prewar leaders? Was it a danger domestically? Was international communism considered a viable threat against Japanese ambitions? Never have I heard of anticommunism as a driving force in Japanese policy.

Of course the pagans of the time believed in higher powers and unearthly things, what I'm interested in is whether or not they believed they could genuinely encounter these things in normal life. Today, if you're hiking into bear territory you wear a bell and bring pepper spray, would a Norwegian man also take precautions for folk creatures?

The other possibility, which I think is less likely to be the case, is that these creatures were stories told to kids to prevent them from wandering into potentially dangerous places, like lakes, or wooded areas. Similar to how we use Santa Claus to keep kids in line, they were not something earnestly believed by adults.

Medieval to modern. Everything I could find when I googled it was about WWI/WWII - and the articles said that next to no one used ear protection. So a lot of veterans had hearing issues. Although I didn’t find any articles about artillery men specifically

I finds it fascinating that island of Ireland has its own language, Irish, with long and storied history and yet over time has lost it to English.
I'm no expert in Irish history, but even just the 20th century tells me that Irish are not the sort of people who would let the dominant power roll over them. Yet based on my understanding of the situation, if you were monolingual Irish speaker nowadays (or 20 years ago, not to run afoul of the rules) you'd struggle to live day to day in Ireland.

How did this come to be and was it an intentional effort? Have there been any even marginally successful revival attempts?

hello! i am a writer (of sorts), currently working on a fun little project with a setting inspired by (but not 100% based on) Tamil Nadu in the 14-1500s ("not 100% based on" = women have rights and caste doesn't exist.) i'm curious as to how armies were organised in the time period. my knowledge of armies at the time, in terms of ranks/operation/etc, is limited to europe. i'd be v grateful to anyone who could provide me with even a little information as to how these armies worked, with more depth than just infantry/calvary/elephants (lol.) my characters are royalty, interacting with soldiers - would they be able to perceive soldiers' ranks from uniform and gauge what they could ask of them accordingly?

(disclaimer: i am ethnically tamil but a 5th generation south african, so please don't link me sources written in tamil - i can't read them 💔)

Given that they likely didn’t expect Russia to become communist, did they plan to maintain their alliance in the future? How did they react to the new German Republic?

I came up with this question after watching an episode of Game of Thrones, where a lord acts as judge in a legal dispute that occurred on their land. I've always been under the impression that Medieval nobility had a lot of legal power, but I've recently read that most of the real authority in Norman England lay with appointed sheriffs. If so, what did the nobility actually do? Were they just very wealthy landowners? What role did the sheriffs play?