Were there also camps for Americans living in Japan during WW2? If they existed, how did those camps differ from the Japanese camps in the US, and how did they differ from regular POW camps in Japan for captured American soldiers?

Just curious why the Soviet Union didn't expand its territory after defeating the Nazi's and gaining control of East Germany. Also how was Germany even capable of remaining it's own country after losing two major world wars. I don't know jack shit about this type of stuff, but it seems like back in the day when empires went on conquests and defeated their enemies, that territory was then absorbed into the winning sides territory, no?

I did some digging but I couldn't find any threads that answered my question.

If I am an American pre-1917 and I want to get involved in the war in Europe for some reason, like I believe in defending Belgium's neutrality or I'm afraid of German expansion, maybe I just want to fight, whatever my reasoning. How would/could I go about it, are Canada and England options? The Foreign Legion? Is this possible, did it happen? Thanks in advance! Edit: This is assuming I am a male of military fighting age and condition.

A concept I came across in a historical fiction novel set in the early 1700s. Like it sounds, a husband divorcing his wife by selling her to another man. How widespread and accepted was this practice?

Do I play Go or Mahjong? Toss dice? Are there sports I play with the neighbours? Am I likely to play an instrument or recite poetry?

Taking a look at the Wikipedia list of law enforcement agencies in different countries, I noticed that the list for the US is a lot longer and more comprehensive than for other countries. While this might be a result of a US-centric design of the article, from my personal knowledge of my own country (Germany) the difference in number still stands out.

In the US almost every federal government department seems to have its own agency, while in Germany and most european countries the number seems to be much lower with a few central police services and no departmental services.

On a state level this seems even more the case, though with a larger country that is also less centralized this isn't as unexpected.

I'd assume that on a federal level this is largely a result of a larger country as well plus the pure additional age the USA has over Germany, the modern german state being less than 100 years old and therefore less bloat developing so to speak. But are those the only reasons?

I'm assuming that most countries in the world, let's say in the 19th century, had some kind of divorce laws in which you could divorce in the case of abuse, or adultery? Was this typically very difficult to prove, domestic violence if it wasn't physical abuse, or proving adultery as a woman? Even if there was a proof of physical abuse, wouldn't it still be difficult to get a divorce due to the patriarchal belief system of the time?

Here is the full quote:

Q. There’s the famous quote from Jefferson that the Missouri crisis awakened him like a fire bell in the night and that in it he perceived the death of the union...

A. Right. He’s absolutely panicked by what’s happening, and these last years of his life leading up to 1826 are really quite sad because he’s saying these things. Reading his writings between 1819 and his death in 1826 makes you wince because he so often sounds like a southern fire-eater of the 1850s. Whereas his friend Madison has a much more balanced view of things, Jefferson becomes a furious and frightened defender of the South. He sees a catastrophe in the works, and he can’t do anything about it.

Did Jefferson become a pro-slavery apologist? Or does Wood mean something else?

Thanks

I've heard in a few different places that Vikings possibly made it to North America before the European contact that came later with the Portuguese, French, British etc... I'm just curious now, knowing that a lot of indigenous tribes hold long lasting oral traditions, did any tribes record contact between themselves and the Vikings?

I have been looking at some posts on the Internet (from people who are not Nazi fans), and I have read quite a few people saying that the Nazi gauleiter Streicher's execution was morally wrong, even though Streicher himself would hardly have been missed in the process. From what I remember, he had little or no political power and most of his influence came from his newspaper Der Stuermer, which apparently did advocate violence at times. However, I do recall one person saying that Streicher had political power as gauleiter of Franconia(?) and that his execution was justified on these grounds. What was the true reason Streicher was executed?

In historical dramas and contemporary paintings, you always see 18th century soldiers wearing what would today be considered the fanciest of dress uniforms with brightly colored coats and ornate hats. Was this really how the average soldier would dress in battle? It seems like equipping thousands of soldiers with these uniforms would be a significant cost without any tactical advantage. It also seems like they would have been very difficult to maintain and keep clean in a field environment.

We've since discovered many other species of humans in the fossil record. But before the existence of Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) was announced, the only human species known scientifically (to my understanding) would have been our own, Homo sapiens. I'm curious as to what the reaction was to the scientific claim that there used to be another kind of human.

I understand their position was to 'win' and that they more or less gave Austria-Hungary a "Blank Check" to respond in a way to the assasination of the Arch Duke in a way guaranteed to cause a war. Why did Germany want war? What was their endgame? If they took Paris, routed the Russians, and the English went back across the channel and sued for Peace in August 1914 what did they want to do?

What exactly was the reason these troops were so powerful? What distinguished them from a normal cavalry unit? And how did those wings bring advantages when they fought?

Or is it because the Winged Hussers became so legendary that they did it in the siege of Vienna?

I know its short-lived nature makes it difficult to analyze in depth politically, but I have recently heard claims that while it made reforms regarding factory conditions, it and its army made notable efforts to return lands to landlords from the peasants who had taken it over post-revolution(s). This seems strange, as I had understood the major pre-revolution(s) distinction between SRs and both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was the SR's focus on the peasantry and land redistribution, compared to the proletariat-focus of the latter pair. Is this all Soviet-era propaganda, or is there genuine truth to the claims of the KOMUCH just being an SR velvet-glove to a reactionary iron fist?

I would also appreciate recommendations of any good English-language literature on the Komuch.

Everybody whether Pawel who works in Warsaw as a car salesman or Phillip who's a customer service rep in Saskatchewan can at least name who one Roman emperor or at least a notable fact about the Romans. Though, the Roman culture and effect on our modern world is seemingly unimportant to most citizens. But neither can name anything historically about the African continent other than the connection to trans-Atlantic slavery?

I saw in a meme a few minutes ago that claimed that fact as true and I was intrigued about whether it really happened or not. If true, was it at the same time or at different times of the year?

Since I joined this sub, I've spent way more time reading posts here than I think is healthy. But I still love every answer I read!

That said, I've seen plenty of unanswered questions, or questions with responses removed for various reasons. I (and I'm guessing most readers who read but don't contribute answers) tend to just skip these questions.

The remindbot is great but it doesn't guarantee an answer will be given. Sorting by controversial works for the first 10 posts or so, but tends to produce more unanswered questions as you scroll further down.

I imagine such a flair doesn't really add all too much for contributors. If anything, it may make it easier to check which questions haven't been answered in a while. Still, my main thrust is that it would help readers get right to what they want: detailed, well-thought answers.

My understanding of reddit bots is admittedly lacking, but from seeing what other subs have done, it seems like you can get a bot to auto-flair the vast majority of posts with about 3-4 rules. Still, with any new feature, there will be extra mod work, so if this is a point of contention, I won't press. I wholly respect the good work the mods are and have been doing to make this sub what it is today.

I understand this is a well-established sub and I'm guessing this question may have been raised before, but answered in the negative. If so, I'm curious as to the reasoning. Thank you in advance!

Edit: a word.