I am aware there is some debate about the extent to which nuclear weapons "ended the war" in Japan. There are many contributing factors to the surrender in August 1945, including the likelihood that the Japanese military was losing, possibly as early as January 1945; the Soviets succeeding in Manchuria and likely to enter Japan, and therefore the preference to surrender to Americans rather than the Soviets; the willingness of the Emperor to refer to the atomic bombs as "new" devastatomg weapons, while surrendering (although "surrender" was not mentioned in the capitulation declaration, etc. The debate about why six days after the Nagasaki bombing, Japan surrendered, is also impacted by the desire of nuclear weapon abolitionists to show that "nuclear weapons aren't needed", and therefore an emphasis on other causes of the surrender. However, given it was unlikely Japan could win the war, given the collapse by Germany, Italy and their allies, is it truthful to say the atom bombs ended the war, or speeded the end of the war? Without those two bombs, what would have been the likely outcomes?

I'm a Catholic and just realized that even though people always say celibacy began in the 11th century, I never heard about the wives of the church fathers. The church fathers are highly regarded in the Church mostly as the priests and bishops that kept the tradition of the apostles and written it to us. So why I never hear about their wives? Is it a Catholic Church police to promote clerical celibacy by ignoring their wives completely?

I’ve recently become fascinated with this man and his story, and want to learn more about it with as much historical accuracy as possible. Any other general reading recommendations for the history of Gran Columbia are also appreciated.

Its remarkable to me how often Americans refer to the constitution or an amendment. While European countries often have constitutions which were written more recently. At least in Austria, people usually don‘t specifically refer to it. I’d say, at least by the general public, it’s more seen as the framework of the nation and that it regulates things like the distribution of competencies etc. It seems weird that in the US, a really outdated, over 200 year old document is still taken word by word.

Learning an accent is a very difficult job. I can imagine modern spies getting trained in accents as well as languages. However during WWI and WWII, did they train their spies to speak with native accents as well? Due to time shortage, that doesn't seem likely to me so, how did they manage?

Thanks!

In a book 'Against the Grain' by James C. Scott, he writes "Other foods could also be readily preserved for shorter or longer periods: fish and meat could be salted, dried, and smoked, legumes such as chickpeas and lentils could be dried and stored, fruits and grains could be fermented and distilled. A bowl of fermented barley beer was, apparently, the daily ration for temple laborers in Uruk."

Was alcohol used to preserve a substantial portion of a person’s calorie intake? Was that an optimal way of preservation or was it chosen because people liked getting drunk?

I don’t know if that is obvious, but I never considered alcohol a significant source of nutrition. What cultures relied on alcohol consumption in their diet the most?

Well, The RAF is pretty notorious, and when I looked at the Battle of Britain statistics Luftwaffe lost over 2 and a half thousand airmen, while the RAF only lost about 500 airmen. So why is it, that there are so few British aces in WW2?

As someone who is interested in history but currently not in college, I found academic history books are very expensive. Is there any way to rent textbooks digitally without college / university account? The subject I'm interested in is not popular where I live so I'm relying to internet source.

Well the origins of the Sea People aren't really mentioned in a lot of history books rather than them just being "marauders." I was wondering if the Sea People were from European bronze age civs like Protovillanova/Nuragic civs?

I teach History and one of my A level pupils has asked me about this...way way out of my areas of expertise! Would love to recommend some reading or point them in the direction of something useful to find out more! I would be most appreciative of any help!

Many parts of Asia were invaded by European powers, but not Thailand and Japan. Why?

I always wondered if Hattori Hanzo was still with Tokugawa Ieyasu or whether he participated in defending his home province and how he felt about Nobunaga invading his birth province. I know it was said that he would take frequent trips to Iga province, so I am sure he must have at least known that his people were not on Nobunaga's side. He was always on the side of Ieyasu, but where was he? Wouldn't you think that Oda Nobunaga knew about Hanzo's birthplace and wouldn't Nobunaga have wanted Ieyasu to execute Hanzo as an example? I feel like there is a gap in Sengoku history about this particular situation.

That value has inflated a lot since then. Did they not expect the constitution to last long enough for inflation to become an issue? Or is inflation just not something they knew about?

Edit:

Thanks for all the replies. To summarize the many excellent comments in this thread:

• Yes, the founders would have known about inflation as a general concept. They debated and wrote about monetary policy with respect to its impact on inflation.
• They would not have understood inflation as a steady, consistent, inevitable march towards higher prices, because that just isn't how inflation worked at the time. Steady single-digit inflation only began in the late 20th century as a result of monetary policies specifically selected to achieve this outcome. It is also not a given that these policies will continue eternally into the future, as I previously assumed.
• Even if steady single-digit inflation had existed at the time, it is not clear the founders would have been able to precisely measure it, because rigorous collection and analysis of macroeconomic indicators was not a thing. (It's also not clear if this matters, because you can observe a general trend without precisely measuring it).
• A civil case under $20 would have been unlikely even at the time, and is rendered even more unlikely today by jurisdiction rules that prevent courts from hearing certain types of cases if the dollar value does not rise to a certain threshold.
• The $20 threshold may have been intended as a token amount, essentially meant to allow for jury trials in almost all civil cases concerning money.

How did his crew know the route back to Spain after the initial trip?

I’ve heard that Esperanto was repressed in Nazi Germany due to it being created by a Jew. I was wondering, did people try to replace it with another IAL, and if they did, how successful was it?

I understand that spices like chilis weren't always a part of Indian and East Asian cuisine, but I have always wondered why Persian cuisine (other than the heavily Arab influenced South) is almost devoid of spicy dishes. Persia/Iran has been trading with India for centuries. There are many similarities between traditional modern Persian and Indian cuisines (stews, rice dishes, kabob, a love for yougurt), and even the name for chicken is almost identical in both Farsi and some northern Indian dialects. But it seems to me like too much of a coincidence for the lack of spicy dishes in Persian cuisine to be something other than a conscious cultural choice to reject spiciness by Persians. I know that food plays a huge part in cultural Identity, and i think it's safe to rule out the lack of availability of chilis, so is there any historical record or cultural context that explains this apparent rejection of spiciness by Persians?