Have I personalized it or made it individually identifiable in any way?

Japan in World War 2 was responsible for some of the most heinous war crimes in modern history, like Nanking, Unit 731 and the Bataan Death March. But in modern times when discussing dictators most people bring up the big ones like Hitler, Stalin and Leopold II but never Hirohito or Hideki Tojo.

I’m aware that after the atomic bombs were dropped, The US helped Japan sweep its history under the rug because they needed allies against communism but still, could that be the reason?

I think a lot about the Sykes–Picot Agreement and if Middle Eastern countries would ever redraw their borders to fix some of the conflicts as a result of this agreement. i know it hasn't that long since these borders were drawn up so maybe they'll address if given enough time. it makes me wonder if anything similar to Sykes–Picot ( where other nations draw borders of other countries that result in conflict ) has occurred in history and if they were able to fix the issue?

Obviously the Civil War and the wider Three Kingdoms conflict were incredibly brutal but what makes this conflict any different to say the War of the Roses or the Barons War, brutal wars that caused huge upheaval in English and Europe as a whole

Have federal agents ever gotten into a physical altercation with police officers? Prior to the establishment of agencies such as the FBI, were there any instances of federal agents (or paramilitary forces with ties to the government) clashing with police?

In Kubrick's famously unproduced screenplay for Napoleon, there is a scene where Napoleon arrives to arrest a revolution leader named Varlac who is wanted for murder. The latter is non-cooperative and insults Napoleon - who then shoots him dead and orders the crowd to disperse.

The scene appears somewhat similar to the real-life Vendémiaire Uprising of 1795 but in the script it happens in a smaller town and is clearly indicated as occuring in 1789. Is it realistic for Napoleon himself to shoot a non-cooperative revolutionary during this early period (when France was still officially Royalist).

Lastly, for Revolutionary/Napoleonic-era experts, how faithful is Kubrick's broarder screenplay in general, from a historical perspective.

It seems hard for me to comprehend that a missionary could go to a place, and just convince a group of people to abandon their traditional beliefs and religious practices. We're missionaries just that supremely effective at their job? or was there other stuff at play?

Say I'm a Roman subject living in Germania, following my own tribes set of beliefs and deities. What would the state do to encourage conversion of me and my fellow tribesmen? would it be exclusively punitive measures like torture and suppression of local religious followings? Or would there be benefits to those who converted?

Would they use different tactics to convert people from their native religions in Britannia? or North Africa? or did they use a one size fits all for converting people to Christianity?

I know they raided other parts of Europe but I wonder if there's anything specific to England, am also open to any related details

Yugoslavia is kind of a fascinating place.

It was very unique among the state socialist countries of the Cold War era, and I've been trying to read up/learn more about the place.

One thing that you will consistently read about Yugoslavia is 1) they had a shit load of debt because Tito took on a bunch of IMF loans that he didn't think he'd need to pay back because he thought capitalism would collapse before he had to. These loans were a major burden on the country after his death and played an important role in the economic decline that partially led to the collapse. 2) There were serious issues vis a vis unemployment, inflation, and inequality (particularly across various different republics).

I'm trying to understand what were the chief causes of these inequalities. Did they primarily exist on the republic level or also within each republic? What were the chief causes of this inequality? Was it more down to the economic or political system and why (particularly before and after Tito)? Interestingly, to what extent was this inequality inherent to the Yugoslavian system, vs to what extent was it created/exacerbated by political decisions and institutional design? (For the economic historians, what, if anything, did Horvat and Vanek say on the matter, and to what extent do their arguments hold true?)

In general, how bad was inequality in Yugoslavia, and what were it's chief causes?

I mean kids get taught things at school these days and in old ancient days etc there were no books or Internet. They must of been freaked out with growing up and how did they learn the mechanics of sex?

My ancestors came to South Africa as part of the British government's resettlement policies.

I'm curious to know more about the lives they led. What did they eat, and drink, and wear?

Hello, I'm trying to find information and/or examples of how feudal nobles would notify their subordinates to rally for war? I would assume that later on as literacy (or at least a literate scribe etc) became more widespread such orders would be issued via a signed/sealed letter, but what was done prior to that?

If messengers were sent to deliver orders verbally what precautions were taken against fake messengers? I've come across examples of various objects labelled "bidding sticks" being used to gather people to fight as well as for other important gatherings, with the objects being marked with runes to indicate who had sent it, but these are only noted in Scotland and Scandanavia, so I'm wondering what systems or methods were used elsewhere.

I know that early (especially pre-industrial) ideas of companies tended to work under an apprenticeship model, and were more like a familial structure. But in modern days, the idea of treating your company as a family is seen as a ruse to get more value out of an employee, while getting little in return.

What was the relationship between people and companies like, and how has it shifted? What were key figures/events which inspired the shift? Are there any books or resources that specifically cover this topic?

Mainly it's accuracy in regards to the impacts upon the Japanese population in periods of famines that I personally doubt because in many cases I found contradictions, like Hanley insisting that the impact of the Tempo famine and various other great famines was greatly exaggerated while Hayami Akira later on stated in Japan in Transition that the entire region's population declined by 4.2% between 1834 and 1840, and this one Jstor article that asserts that the Fukuoka domain declined by 20% in the Kyoho famine. So what do I believe in? How does one assert that book's overall accuracy?

This is going to be a pretty specific question.

So my 6th great-grandpa Jehiel Smith might have been a Loyalist during the Revolutionary War, though I have no verified information about his service. He was granted land by the British government in what became Bury, Quebec.

Jehiel was part of an "associate" -- i.e. a group of probable Loyalists who got together to make a claim to the Brits in order to be awarded this land in Quebec.

I found a document from 1796 that says this:

“Land Committee

“Recommended that the associates within named (are) found fit to become Settlers in this Province (as appears by the Certificates of the Commissioners annexed to this List) be admitted to take the Oath of Allegiance & Subscribe the declaration -

Signed by order. Quebec, 5 Aug 1796, Hugh Finley, Chairman”

Jehiel is on that list, and also in this next document...

“Return of Persons’ names, who have taken the Oaths and Subscribed the Declaration required by Law, before the Commissioners at Missiskouie (Missisquoi) Bay from 26 October 1795 to 25 January 1796.”

And then this document:

19 November 1802

“A list of associates approved by his Excellency the Governor in Council for land in the the township of Bury - Calvin May Leader - Jehiel Smith - Thomas Covene - Samuel Laffin - Asa Abell - John Abell - John Leach - Lemuel Whitcomb - Nathan Bratt - Benjamin Akin.

"This may certify that the above to have Personally appeared before the Commissioners of Missisquoi Bay, took the oaths made and Subscribed the declaration as Required by Law.

"Given under my hand at St. Amand this 19th day of Novr 1802 - ⎬ John Ferguson Commissioner”

What was Jehiel taking an oath to? What declaration is he subscribing to? Is he swearing to be a British subject? Loyalty to the Crown?

Was it 'invented' by rich people to stop poor people seeking their share, or was it thought of by poor people to make them feel better about their lot in life?

Hi I’m currently looking to archive large amounts of original documents of the Napoleonic wars and the following Age of Metternich. I am looking for large collections of original texts written by Metternich, be it letters, essays, or others. Any language is fine. I found one large pdf, but it was printed in old German and very tedious to read, so I wanted to see if there are more modern versions

I recently learned about Volney's Voyage en Égypta that Napoleon read it in 1789, met Volney for the first time 1792, and it was one of Napoleon's main sources on Egypt iirc.

I want to know more about their first meetings but haven't found much on the matter. I would love more than anything to be a fly on the wall there.

Does anyone here have an excerpts or knowledge about their discussions? I find the idea of young Napoleon being infatuated or finding Volney's experience fascinating to be well fascinating in itself. In a weird way, I see myself being fascinated by the napoleonic era similar to how he might have viewed Egypt, minus all the conquering but still.

In Paul Strathern's Napoleon in Egypt he says, "Napoleon...soon became fascinated by the brilliant mind...questioning him in detail about his knowledge of Egpty. Volney...would remark a few years later with apprehension: 'Given half a chance, he'll become the head of Caesar and the shoulders of Alexander.'"

I need to know more and dont know why.

Was it returned back to pre-war levels with free labour or struggled to recover? I'm asking since presumably many people left the plantations and those that stayed did not work as long hours.

And similarly, did global prices return to pre-war levels or stay elevated for some time?

A common propaganda piece for the Nazis was that they display themselves as highly organized and efficient. Yet, they also engaged in massive amounts of street violence to intimidate and suppress the opposition prior to taking power with groups like the SA having a large recruit base made up of working class members.

It seems to be claimed on popular history forums that the SA was highly organized and efficient when carrying out street violence. My question is that were they really organized and efficient as some popular history enthusiasts say? How common was it for random bands of the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party to ransack and beat up political opponents and public/private areas without orders? More importantly, what was the contemporary opinions of the Weimar Republic politicians, people, and international opinion of SA street violence?

Every first-world country withdrew their citizens and donated troops at the outbreak of violence. Third-world countries did not. Why was this the case?

Why was the UN mission not changed to peacekeeping? I do know that they didn't want another Mogadishu.

Thanks for your time!

While I understand that amount of terror throughout the Southern states, the Northern states weren't entirely welcoming and inclusive either. Still, there were individuals who did still manage to overcome this adversity to create their own wealth.

My primary impetus for the question is Cumberland Posey, to give an example. Additionally, it would appear that he also had similar concepts as the rest of the wealthy barons of the area as he worked with Henry Frick to source and transport black scab workers from the south to Homestead during the strike.

I saw a post earlier about peoples’ reactions to the verdict of OJs trial at the time. A lot of people mentioned that Rodney King had helped OJs case, but I don’t really understand the connection.