How much of a choice did South Korea have in decision making during the war when compared to its former occupier the United States?

Another question: did South Korea recognize that it was fighting a proxy war on behalf of the Americans?

I have been digging around trying to find the most accurate English translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf. I'm between Ralph Manheim, Michael Ford, and the "official Nazi translation." My interest is in finding the most accurate translation; I've read that some translations have selectively excluded certain passages. I don't speak German and I don't intend to learn it just for the purposes of reading this book.

I often hear the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki weighed against a full-scale invasion of japan, but this seems like a false dichotomy to me. Was a peace agreement or armstice on the table for the Allies? What made other options more or less viable?

As far as I know, most other places have a much greater diversity of surnames, isn't it? For instance, wikipedia says that in 2000 only 16% of the American population had one of the 100 most common American surnames. If that's the case, why is that so?

So lets say the Duke of Aquitaine marries a noble in Flanders, Bavaria or somewhere further than that. His wife eventually inherits a title because she became the only eligible heir (maybe all male siblings died, etc).

So what happens next in a scenario like this? Would the wife keep or give up the title? Would the local nobles elect someone else rather than let the title be inherited by a foreigner's child the next generation?

How would the wife even manage the title? Would she be expected to leave Aquitaine (and her husband) and go back to her birthplace to manage the title? Or would she appoint someone to do it in her name?

Would the title eventually end up being inherited by the future Duke of Aquitaine, so he would end up owning land in Aquitaine and some far off country?

How common did something like this happen in history via inheritance, and how was it dealt with? I doubt dukes and kings would have liked it when some foreign noble inherited land in their country, because thats effectively a loss of territory.

Say a pilgrim wanted to sail from England to France to get to Rome. How much would that cost. And how did that compare to mediterranean sea travel.

I would assume it makes sense that it would just be easier to depict in movies and TV shows.

For example were there as many German descendants in the south as there were in the north or as many English descendants in the north as in the south etc? and did this differ particularly state to state?

Hi! I am an undergraduate student in History and for my final year, I was allowed to take on the task of a undergraduate thesis. This means completing a much larger piece of work than I've ever had the chance to write and as such I am both excited and a little overwhelmed. My thesis proposal is discussing the historiographical impact of George Orwell's memoir 'Homage to Catalonia' on the memory of the war, specifically localized to the 'May Days Event' which took place in Barcelona, 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. The event laid bare a great deal of the political strife and disunity that plagued the Spanish Republic, ultimately leading to its collapse in 1939.

A large problem that I have stumbled upon is locating specific sources. There is plenty of writing on the Spanish Civil War itself and I have done enough general research on, say, the political tensions of the Spanish Revolution and its followers (mostly radical leftists) and the government forces who just wanted to deal with Franco. I have also been looking at George Orwell and his writings on Spain and I have so far come to the conclusion that he is narrowminded when it comes to this conflict (in Homage he says he was expecting modern, dangerous, warfare like on the Western Front in WWI where death was a constant factor, his military experience in Spain, however, is much more limited and he complains about it a lot). In fact he takes a very paternalistic view of the Spaniards and Catalans fighting for their ideals and their homes. He discusses at length how the war in Spain is rather small scale and not very aggressive and overall very very boring! In discussing Barcelona during the urban fighting of May 1937, he is mostly ambivalent because he was not near the center of the fighting and as such complains about the tedious boredom of being holed up in the hotel headquarters of his radical political paramilitary unit the POUM, firing on vague targets across the street. I want to challenge this interpretation with comparing and contrasting local accounts of the Barcelona May Days and see the differences. So! That brings me to my main question! Is there any one who specializes on the the Spanish Civil War and can they help me with sources which are more specific to Catalonia's experience of the war and Barcelona during those May Days, particular from a local perspective and especially since more modern research has been developed.

I have found a few small scale accounts of the events mentioned. In a Catalan man's diary from the time, for instance, who was present during the May Days. However there are two problems with this. 1) is that he is a Nationalist, Catholic, land holding, Spaniard who supports Franco but chooses to fight for the Republic as he is afraid of being seen as a traitor and would be shot which makes him incredibly bias against any of the myriad of political movements in Barcelona at this time. 2) is that his account of his time in Barcelona is rather short and limited to maybe 3 or 4 pages which isn't very extensive. What I would like to find is any account written by actual participants of the street fighting who are Republican/Anarchist/etc. This would bring a much needed different prospective to the events and which I can contrast with Orwell's account. I would also accept any other foreign volunteers memoirs of the same events if that is available. As well if there is any contemporary articles/books specifically on this event, those would be a great help!

As I think I have made it abundantly clear I cannot seem to locate very many primary sources (in English) which can help me and that is basically what I am looking for but secondary research would help greatly!

I may be posting in the wrong subreddit and I would just like to make it clear that I am essentially looking for sources but if this does not fit the rules of the subreddit, please guide me to the right one. Many thanks in advance,

A Young Historian :)

Tldr: Looking for sources on Barcelona and Catalan experiences in the May Days fighting during the Spanish Civil War.

I heard a story of the Japanese flying really low and dropping torpedoes from their planes and was curious as to why the RAF couldn't do the same for German dams?

Doing an coursework on the question "In furthering his dominance in Rome, to what extent was Julius Caesar driven by personal desire for power?" My arguments will be either that he was motivated by his own selfishness or that what he did was in pursuit of genuine want to help the People of Rome (true popularis). Also concidering arguing that he wasn't motivated by anything, that his rise to power was a result of chance and situation. (Would go against all the contemporary source claims that he desired a kingship above all else) I'm reasonably well educated on Caesar but I would really appreciate others opinions and I'd be so grateful for help with modern scholar sources as well as lesser used primary (already using Suet. Lucan, Plutarch, Cicero, Appian and Sallust). Thank you in advance 💙

I am interested in doing research on the letters between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, particularly after they reconciled their relationship. Does anyone know if their letters directly address their disagreements on the powers of the federal government and the founding of the new nation? If so, can you share particular dates of these letters? This project is inspired after reading Gordon Wood's book Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

While I do not think that face features that arise from Down Syndrome would be linked to the disease since there is a small chance for another person to also have Down Syndrome in the same community at the time. I have heard an article about skeletal remains of children with Down Syndrome that was buried in the same manner as other people and they were suggesting from this that they were treated no differently than other people - but can we extrapolate that fact simply from the manner of their burial?

Is there some evidence of a mystical explanation for Down Syndrome from the people in the Middle Ages? I don't want to be rude here, but would they suggest that they are possessed by demons or are "trolls" or any other mystical creature from the culture? I find those explanations for mental illnesses as demon possession interesting and how the culture shaped those explanations and how those illnesses shaped the culture.

I was wondering how his books like No God But God or Zealot are regarded? Are they seen as popular histories with questionable factual basis and research? Or are they good sources to know about early Islam and Christianity?

Recently I realised I'd never heard cases of North American colonists taking the indigenous people as slaves like I had in South American. I had a quick Google and couldn't find much.

I was wondering if anyone could shed more light on if this happened (on a large scale) and if so why does it seem to be more downplayed?

I'm not American so I never covered American history much. Thanks for any help :)

So pirates are often portrayed as wearing normal seamans clothing and using sabers, pistols and muskets. But wouldn't it make sense to use spears/pikes for their superior reach and light armor like the ones the Conquistadors wore to atleast protect against light injuries?

In a debate with a friend over this, I’ll try to explain. She is claiming that the revolutionary war was just the rich trying to get richer and that this proves that America was built on the concept, causing the whole system to be corrupt. Is she right? I don’t think she is but maybe I’m the wrong one here? I mean yeah taxes was the whole deal but I thought it was more the whole being taxed without anyone in parliament to vouch for them that started it

Today we (me) tend to think of the lives of monks and nuns as a one way street: you join the church and you never leave.

In the series, which are based on a book with a similar name, set in mid-late 12th century Sweden, Arn is first sent to live in a monastery as a child to fulfill a vow made by his mother. Algot has two daughters, one of which also lives in a nunnary, but Algot sends the younger child to replace the elder. Arn leaves the monastery as an adult, only to to have him and Cecilia sent back as punishment for having a child outside of wedlock. They are sent for 20 years, after which they are allowed to leave the church again.

Is this in-and-out church life something that happened in 12th century Scandinavia, or is it just a fictional device invented by the author?

I remember being taught in my high school world history classes that the early Islamic empires were very religiously free and especially for "people of the book" However in current times it appears that Islamic countries are very oppressive to these same religions. Is there any good explanation for this shift. Or is this perceived shift only becuase current US society is very anti-muslim and this creates bad press. If possible what are some sources I could read to better my understanding of the subject.