The scientists were wrong about the yield of the Blast from the Trinity Test , with the blast being more than two times more powerful then expected. But the americans poured huge resources into the Manhattan Project and the Germans also tried to produce an A-Bomb, so they clearly thought something of this new weapon. So my question is, how much did the scientists predict about the A-Bomb and (if a historian can explain this question) how did they know about this possible Power.

I watch a lot of historical shows set in England, people were starving and a lot of people would hunt but got caught and would get hung or be shot. Why? It seems like they wanted their people to starve to death

I saw someone on a Reddit thread claim that ancient Rome (I think he claimed around Aristotle's time) was very close to industrialisation. I want to know if that claim holds any water, and if so, then how close was Rome to industrialisation, and were there any other ancient civilisations that were close to industrialisation?

Post traumatic stress is a big issues for combat veterans today, and as far as I've seen has been a prevalent issues since identified as "shell shock" in WWI and likely before. In the media this is shown as well, but as far as I have seen it is not shown in warrior cultures such as the vikings or Greeks. So, are there recorded instances of PTS in early history? And if not, could it be attributed to these cultures spiritual beliefs about warriors?

If ancient Egyptians believed cats had some level of higher power or influence, or at least symbolized certain god-like qualities, what did they believe about people who were allergic to cats? Did they think that this was a mark of someone unworthy, or that the allergies were a person being unworthy of deities or certain traits?

I guess another question cloaked into this is whether they even realized some people had physical reactions to cats. I obviously wouldn’t expect them to understand how allergies work, but I would assume there was at least some level of understanding that there was a sub-population who had a cat aversion.

My understanding of cat symbolism in Egypt is incredibly naive, so it’s possible that the basis of this question is off, but I would appreciate any explanation as to whether cat allergies had any significance in cultures which highly regarded cats! Thank you :)

ETA: My original posing of this question incorrectly framed the belief of cats themselves as deity-level, rather than cats having deity-like symbolism. A better way to phrase this question then, is ‘How (if at all) were cat allergies interpreted by societies that attached (particularly theistic) symbolism to cats?’

So in a lot of ways, the office of American President was made to fit George Washington’s skill set since everyone wanted him to be something important. But did anyone propose some minimum military service to run for office? If so, why was it left out?

Was this part of a general "Eastern" trend, or were Japanese banners unique?

I've read about the sinking of the Bismarck and Scharnhorst and I can't help but feel that these ships have been foolishly thrown practically alone (save for a single cruiser or several destroyers, respectively) into the wide open ocean against the numerically vastly superior royal navy. At the same time, from what I've read, both the Bismarck and the Scharnhorst were very modern and effective battleships for their time, yet obviously not enough so to make up for the vast difference in numbers between the two navies.

So to clearly state my question, what lead to the decision to send Bismarck and Scharnhorst out to intercept convoys almost on their own, and was it a good decision if we look at it from the perspective of those who made it?

Wouldn't the Chinese have been glad and became allies with the US after we defeated Japan? Instead less than ten years later the Chinese fought to support North Korea.

Basically, my great-grandfather was sent to a labor camp in the Netherlands in early 1944 and contracted a staph infection that led to his death at age 27. He was Jewish and his wife was not so his deportation was delayed after a few call-ups but they eventually sent him. I'm wondering why they would have let him go to a hospital in a nearby city. I'm assuming it was most likely just so that he could keep performing labor, but couldn't they have easily let him die and arrested another person? His career wasn't in labor and it was fairly shortly after he got to the camp, so I can't imagine that he would have been particularly "outstanding." I don't have many details but I do know for sure that he died in a regular hospital off of the camp. His family was even allowed to visit him in his last moments and my grandmother has told me that while the conditions were awful, the laborers still had communication with home and could even go to the city on the weekends. Why was he taken to the hospital? Why were they fairly "lenient" as opposed to other camps?

​

(Also: very uninterested in any kind of "the Holocaust wasn't as bad as people think" comments or thoughts.)

It’s no secret that for centuries good hygiene just didn’t exist (no indoor plumping, infrequent bathing, no toothbrushes or floss, no regular clothes washing, etc). I have heard of practices that were used to cover up the poor smells that were so common, like rinsing one’s mouth out with perfume, or carrying around dry flowers to smell while in large crowds.... but, were people during medieval times happy with this level of hygiene? Because everyone shared the same level of cleanliness back then, was it just so common that no one thought of themselves as exceptionally dirty or smelly? Surly, if they did they would have done more than just gargle perfume and sniff dead flowers, right?

From a European point of view, the war had never really reached the mainland of the USA. The closest it got was Pearl Harbour, so keeping that in mind, the public would have only heard and read about it. Meanwhile the whole of Europe saw it and lived it.

Did they just go about their everyday, sometimes not thinking about it all or did they follow news reports? I understand America is very large with differing mentalities, but was there any general census?

Given his abilities and ambition, it didn’t seem like a wise decision to keep him alive. Was it just out of respect for what he’d accomplished? The other theory I had was they didn’t want to upset any French citizens who were still loyal to him.

Forgive my limited knowledge of history here, but it seems like for the 20th century was the rise of United States as the center of money and power (maybe since 1850s?)

Before the US it seems like Great Britain was the center of power. I'm curious to understand what it was like to see power getting shifted away. How long did it take and what was Great Britain's reactions?

I'm curious also to see if there are learnings from what's happening today, as it's possible that US will be fading in power in the next century to challengers (most notably China.)

I'm asking because recently I've learned that there was a Scythian kingdom in modern day Azerbaijan around Alexander's time named "Sakasene" in Greek, coming from the Persian Saka, I can't help but notice how similar that sounds to Saxon and similar to how Uralic people called Saxons as "Saksen", so is there any study on this subject?

My question refers to all germans who were considered a part of the social elite at the time. For example, were there devout Catholics at high political positions in the government? In the movie “Operation valkyrie” we can see the military officer Claus von Stauffenberg going to church whilst being a high ranking officer. Were there more people like him in the nazi circles? How were they treated?

Hi! I'm looking for historical contexts to research, and books to read so I can learn more about this topic.

I'm picturing a situation where a community has a large powerful country encroaching on them, and a religious building is built that's come from the powerful country, in the smaller community. Seems like there'd be a conflict between allowing religious pluralism, and resisting the cultural advance of the colonial power. I'm really interested in both essays about the ethics of this sort of situation, and historical case studies.

Thanks a lot! Sorry if this is a weird/unclear question!

One of the things done by the French revolution was imposing French as a national language throughout all the territories. Im very curious about the evolution and adoption of French from the medieval period until the 20th century. What regions had predominantly other languages being spoken that wasn't French? Was french widely known or was it just "another language" in the kingdom before the revolution? And how strongly was French enforced officially?