Did the black hand have ties to the Serbian government for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? Was the assassination supported by them?

Having read the article of the Dog festival in China and the kidnappings of local pets to supply for the dog dishes, I am quite curious why Japan is quite unique in that it never developed dog dishes as a tradition or even a thriving underground delicacy?

I mean even other Asian countries that make dog meat taboo and illegal such as the Philippines and Indonesia has underground markets that cook dog meat. They may not be mainstream and indeed these countries have a tradition of taboo dog meat because the populace sees dog as disgusting to cook and eat, but somehow subcultures and regions even in these countries have it thriving enough to at least have a big feast and some small places in these countries' outskirt may even eat dog daily (despite the main nations' culture being anti-dog meat).

Considering all of Japan's nearby neighbor across the East Asian stratosphere still have restaurants that openly sell cook dog without facing controversy, how come Japan never went this path? I mean I wouldn't be surprised if there are sickos who engage in a black market dog trade of a small isolated mountain community of less than 100 does eat dog and maybe a household in the forest regions eat dog secretly........ But an entire subculture or even regions of over 200+ people (often reaching thousands as Indonesia and Philippines) people eating it for a yearly delicacy? I haven't heard anything like this in Japan.

Indeed even before modernization Imperial Japan doesn't seem to ahve this dish in contrast to Korea, China, and the rest of East Asia. Even culinary documentaries I watched on Asia don't mention dog being delicacy in Japan while they frequently highlight dog on menu in China and Korea and local holidays eating dog meat, etc.

Why is this? Why didn't Japan go the way of its neighbors esp with China influencing all across Asia up until the Indian and Afghani/Iranian borders?

Hey everyone, what an amazing subreddit this is . Recently my prof said there's someone who discovered Antibiotics way before sir Dr Fleming and so i thought what better place to ask for some history behind facts than here ,so if anyone has any idea or anything really related to the answer that'd be really appreciated

I'm doing research on Miss Lulu Hurst, a stage performer from the late 19th century, but when I started digging through newspaper archives I noticed she is many times referred to as "Lula" instead of Lulu. This happens in more than one place, so I'm wondering if there is a reason for her name to be changed or if it's a mistake that kept happening over and over again. It goes as far as in the same newspaper her name is written 2 different ways. I have scans of the newspapers but the sub doesn't let me post them. Regardless, the question stands:

​

Why was a U changed to an A? Were these interchangeable at the time?

Hey historians! I have been researching for the past hour, and it feels like I am going in a circle. There seems to be a gap in a few of the historical origins of the color blue, specifically when talking about Krishna. In my color theory class, it is assumed that a lot of ancient languages did not have a word for the color blue. But, there is a story linked with the Holi festival that comes from the mythology of the god Krishna. Krishna's skin was "dark blue" because a demoness had tried to poison him when he was a baby, and Krishna was worried that Radha wouldn’t like him because of his appearance. His mother, Yashoda, playfully suggested that he smear some brightly coloured powder on Radha’s face. This is why some people believe the tradition of throwing colors onto your family and friends came about. But if Hindi or Sanskrit language did not have a word for blue, why is Krishna depicted to be blue? And why does this story explain that Krishna's blue skin came was the aftermath of poisoning?

TLDR; The Hindu god Krishna is depicted and has ancient mythological stories about his blue skin, but there is conflicting research that ancient languages did not have a word for the color blue. Why is this? Wouldn't Hindi/Sanskrit language have a word for the color blue if it was used in art and stories?

I'm sorry if this is not the right subreddit, but I figured a historical view would be useful for this question.

With the international rise of populist, alt-right politicians who claim to love democracy I was wondering the following: Did the Nazi's claim to support democracy in their election campaigns?

It seems hard to imagine that they would really run a campaign in which they openly claimed that they wanted to abolish democracy. Nowadays at least, claiming that would destroy someone's credibility so no politician's openly says that (even though it might be their actual intention to dismantle democracy...). Just wondering, I couldn't find anything on this.

From the research I’ve done on this individual I’ve discovered that towards the later parts of the war a lot of Hitler’s decision making became more desperate and erratic. To be more specific I’m curious about:

1. Did Hitler’s early success in annexing/occupying/aligning central and western European countries give him a false sense of confidence?

2. When Hitler started to face setbacks on the Eastern Front, did this as far as we know harm his mental state?

3. As I understand he was a fan of using a lot of narcotics, did this change anything as the war went on?

4. Did Hitler initiate the Holocaust in 1941 purely because that was as parts of the USSR was occupied which in turn placed large Jewish populations under German jurisdiction, was it always his plan or did he just snap and take a more extreme turn? More than anything I’m just curious why he chose this time to begin the mass killings. Why not after Poland?

5. How did betrayals from Hitler’s allies throughout the war change him? The flight of Hess, the surrender of Italy and the Slovak Uprising are some examples I can think of.

This is my first post here so I hope I’ve formatted and written this correctly. Cheers.

I have to admit, I’m quite puzzled that mainstream histories tend to treat domino theory as crackpot given these circumstances (even if US bombing campaigns did dramatically increase the support base for the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge).

I'm reading some Islamic history right now. The book states that when Umar was nearing his death and couldn't convince another man named Abdelrahman to become caliph he chose six men to decide between themselves, which led to all the hubris that came afterwards surrounding Uthman and the rest. Why didn't he just anoint Ali as heir when he had no other choice?

His argument, in an extremely simplified form, is that the demography and archaeology do not in any way support tens of thousands of yearly sacrifices, and that those numbers come entirely from secondhand colonial sources who have an extremely obvious interest in painting their enemies as bloodthirsty monsters. I found it extremely convincing, but I'm not a historian.

What do historians think?

I'm specifically looking for the significance of each smaller part that make up Japanese clan emblems, primarily from the Sengoku era. Does such a database exist? The Date clan mon is especially interesting to me. Thank you!

We learn about history and things, but no one ever gives extensive lessons on sanitation, I know about Greco Roman bathhouses, and I know Moctezuma bathed like 8 times a day, but no one really systematically includes how each culture handled their bowels and waste. To make it less broad how about the Iroquois tribe, or the Navajo tribe, etc. did they have the equivalent of an outhouse, or did you just go wherever you felt like, I imagine there was some system in place seeing as no matter the tribe, genitals tended to be covered, what did they use for toilet paper, and what did women use for periods, I’m interested in what women used for periods cross culturally pre Colombian, and how were women’s monthly’s viewed. I’m extremely interested in this topic cross culturally, like even British knights in the 1300ad, or Kushites 80bc

If not, why was his association with a Nuclear Explosion such a good campaign ad?

What methods did preliterate societies use? How effective were they?

I was reading about the lack of evidence for the mass exodus of israelites from egypt as depicted in the old testament. How, according to the old testament, 600 000 men left with women and children in tow in one day, making a population of around 1.5 million people. There is no mention of this in egyptian records at the time, and it is said that they were very good at keeping records, and the loss of such a massive part of their workforce would not have gone unrecorded (not to mention the death of the pharaoh in the sea).

So i was wondering, how true is this? What degree of detail and rigor do we see in their record keeping during this time period? How small would the band of israelites leaving need to be before its not significant enough for a record to be made?

Edit: typo

While reading Mike Duncan's book: The Storm Before the Storm I started finding a lot of things that are remarkably similar in the Roman Republic when compared to the US.

While I know that those systems are obviously not the same and the comparisons shouldn't be overdone between those two systems I would still be interested to hear about how comparable individual things from those systems are (like for example the comparison of the Gracchi Brothers to the Roosevelts) and how accurate those comparisons would be.

Hello, I wanted to ask if anyone knows about the international reaction to the battle of Gettysburg. Me and a group of people are trying to make a presentation on the battle and are considering including international relations as a factor. While there seems to be a lot of material on IR with regards to the civil war itself, I'm struggling to find material on a specific battle. It would be especially helpful if you could direct me to resources for further reading.