I watched Hitchcock's Notorious last night, which came out in August of 1946, about a year after the bombs were dropped. SPOLIER ALERT...in case you haven't seen the movie (it's only been out for 75 years)! I was taken aback that Hitchcock >!used enriched uranium as his MacGuffin for a film that came out a year after the bombs.!< How much did the general public know about atomic energy before the bombs were dropped? How much did the average U.S. citizen know about it in the years after they were dropped? And a bonus question: Hitchcock must have had some special information. Considering how long it takes to make a film, some people in Hollywood must have known the basics of what was going on in Los Alamos.

All I know is that it existed about 1300 and that is it.

Baseball was notorious for having the Negro leagues exist, and the story of Jackie Robinson breaking the colour barrier in 1947 is something that has been covered in depth. However what policies were done to keep black players out of the NFL and NBA (and it's predecessors) until they were both integrated?

(I've deliberately left hockey out of this, as I'm familiar with it; however I'm happy to expand on that for anyone who would request it)

I’m writing a screenplay about a Swiss painter that immigrated to the US in the late 1930s, and I wanna get the little details of the time period right. Anythhing helps. Thanks!

I am trying to understand the tradition, myth and origins of Ostara (Eostre or Eastre). Was this associated with the Norse/Viking culture or their closely related Germanic/Saxon "cousins"? How far back does this tradition go? What did they do celebrate the equinox?

According to the U.S. Census, more Americans self-identify as having German ancestry than any other group, and the peak of the migration seems to have been during the 1880s (1.5 million arrived just in that decade).

While I've learned much about the 'pull' factors during this time, which overlaps with the U.S. Gilded Age, I have struggled to understand what conditions 'pushed' German migrants to the United States. In some accounts of German history, this period is almost considered a Golden Age in that country. Germany had just unified, Bismarck was chancellor, and they had started to implement the world's first welfare state. This seems incongruous–if things were getting better in Germany, then why did so many leave?

On Sept 10, 1940 my grandmother was interviewed on the radio program We, the People. (She survived being held hostage for two days by escaped convicts) Many decades ago my family had a copy of the recording but sadly has since been lost. No one has heard the interview in over 50 years. It would be incredible to be able to find the audio of this episode online but so far I've been unable to. Does anyone happen to know a good source for old radio archives?

Recently have been interested in the history and historical significance of bread. This has had me wondering about how individual bakers and bakeries were effected immediately before, during, and after the French Revolution. Were any bakeries blamed for the prices or shortages? Were any of the various governing bodies cutting deals with specific bakers or bakeries? How did the bread change and how were these changes viewed by the average citizen?

​

Any discussion or sources about bread, grain production, famous bakers, or bakeries during this period is welcome.

I'm not asking about fraud on the historians part but more the biases or lies the origanal writers would put in to make their side look better.

One example I know if is how I grew up being taught Romans fed Christians to the lions. Now it turns out that was probably just the Churatians trying to make the Romans look bad.

Is there anything like peer review or some formal process historians go through when reading a new text?

Are there any great books out there that cover the history of drug production and distribution and its prevalence in societies? In ancient Greece, Rome or Egypt, China or India? The middle ages, 18th centuries, etc.?

As well, was it necessarily always illegal? Were people relatively more accepting of drugs throughout history than in the modern day? (I'm talking more the widely illegal forms of hallucinogens or narcotics, not drugs like alcohol or caffeine or nicotine, so there's no confusion.)

Did most people even know such narcotic substances existed before the modern day, or what their consequences to a person's well being may be?

If so, was crime (not drug trafficking obviously, if it was legal then there was no crime associated with that. I mean like murder rates and such) associated with such civilizations and drugs also far lower, or deaths from overdose or rival drug producers higher or at the same rate as in the modern day?

When reading anti-roman Catholic literature from the nineteenth century you sometimes come across the idea that the Roman Catholic Church taught the doctrine of "No faith need be kept with heretics". Was this ever true?

If these sources can be believed it was regarded as permittable to use lies, broken promises, fake offers of amnesty or safe conduct, treaties that were not intended to be kept or (most significantly) violations of the oath of loyalty to ones Monarch when battling against heretics. I have read of this being used as a justification for denying Catholics various rights in Britain on the grounds that their oaths of loyalty had no meaning.

I have heard the Council of Constance named as the Council that officially propogated the doctrine. I have also read that this was used as justification for the arrest of Jan Hus when he had been promised safe conduct. I have also come across sources claiming that the slaughter of the huguenots was justified with this idea.

Was this ever actually an idea in the Catholic Church itself? If so how widespread was it. I suspect that the anti-catholic nineteenth cantury sources might be exaggerating somewhat but I haven't managed to find any clear sources. What is the history of this idea whether as actual Catholic doctrine of Protestant propoganda?

I will note that outside of playing the original game for about half an hour on my Switch last night (which naturally confused me a bit), I have not played anything in the Metroid franchise and therefore know nothing about Samus or the lore of the games, other than tiny bits and pieces picked up from playing Smash Bros for two decades. From what I've picked up on the original game, though, is that the instruction manual says Samus is actually a man, and the gender reveal only happens at the end of the game, and only under certain conditions.

The video game industry and community has a reputation for being… er, pretty sexist, to say the least, and my gut tells me that it was even worse in the 80s, though that is totally speculation. So I can imagine that this would ruffle some feathers upon release. But Metroid became a very successful franchise, and Samus was a playable character in the first Smash game a decade later, so it seems like the franchise must have become popular in spite of any sexism of the era.

So, what motivated Nintendo to make a female action hero for this game, and did they face any backlash for that (particularly from male fans)? If so, [how] did they overcome it?

I read some posts here on r/AskHistorians explaining the historical reasons for why Jewish people were limited to working with second hand commerce and lending money. But I couldn't find anything related to the presence of jewish people in Hollywood or the media in general.

I'm well aware that any theory saying that the Jewish People have any control of media/banks/etc. is an antisemitic conspiracy, as they were the go-to minority for any prejudice in Europe. But my focus with this question is to know if there is, at all, any particular presence of Jews, in comparison to other ethnicities, in the film industry. And if so, what are the historical reasons for that presence.

When the Roman Empire collapsed, no-one after Justinian ever attempted to re-unite it ever again.

In Chinese history, even during times of significant upheveal on a similar level to the Migration Era, such as during the Sixteen Kingdoms, Northern and Southern Dynasties and the Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms eras where numerous ethnically non-Han peoples moved in and lived in China proper, China would always manage to re-unite itself (E.g. The Sui Dynasty would re-unite China after the Sixteen Kingdoms and North-South Dynasties era and the Song Dynasty would re-unite China after the Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms era).

Why was this the case in China and not the case in Europe?

This question has probably been ask before and since I'm not from the US I don't know if the answer is too obvious. It seems rather curious to me however that the parties seem to have completely flip form their 19th century ideologies. These can be seen for example in the nowadays republican party and voter defending the use of the confederate flag or the stablishment of confederate statues, whilst the creator of said party would become mortified to that idea.

I know that most cultures will go through dramatic changes over such timeframes but I've heard some confusing arguments about whether or not the current day Taíno identity is a revivalist movement that kind of started from scratch in the last century or so or if there is an undeniable unbroken link between the Taíno before the ravages of European colonialism and the current day Taíno that is reflected in things like culture, language and belief.

I've repeatedly heard that the executioner, before putting Robespierre in the guillotine, tore off the bandage that was holding his shattered jaw together, and that he screamed until the blade came down. I've also heard that he placed the man facing upwards, so he could see the blade coming.

Is there any truth to this? And if so, was there any kind of reaction to this behaviour?

I'm an aspiring screenwriter who has an idea about a story. It is basically a whodunit set in a convent in the 16th century. I want it to be realistic regarding monastic life.

If you or you know somebody who can help me please let me know. If it ever gets published I will give you credit. This is probably not the correct subreddit but any help is good.

Broderick starred in a fairly popular movie called War Games in 1983 as a teenage hacker using a PC.

How was this movie so popular or even believable, if the internet and computers weren't ubiquitous? When did the PC get widely adopted? How would kids learn to program them if public schools weren't yet teaching computers? Were they considered just a novelty to buy your white middle class kid a PC?