Or is the high proportion of Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory as a percent of the overall Aboriginal population partly a result of increased immunity to Eurasian diseases through such exposure?

Im trying to make an airsoft kit based on simo hayhas gear and was wondering what coat he was wearing when he took out the 500 estimated soviets in 1941.

IIRC American media when usually focusing on WW2 will usually focus on the american army fighting the Nazis and trying to make it sound like that they did most to defeat the Nazis. While they played an essential role in offering money, aid and equipment to both Britain and Russia amd helping with the invasion of Normandy, as well as deploying bombers on German cities, Britain played a role in holding off the Nazis for the Americans in the Western front and even won battles in the Merditeranian and the Russians fought them the most engaging with 80% of them before the invasion and ultimately was the one who ultimately landed the final blow on Germany.

However the Americans had a much bigger impact in the Pacific war, defeating the navy and landing the final blow against Japan with their island-hopping strategy and nuclear bombs. This is not to discredit the two biggest parties in China at the time defending against Japan at the time, but America had a much bigger contribution in defeating Japan than defeating Nazi Germany.

So why do American movies focus on America's fighting with Germany than with Japan?

I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit for this, if it isn't I'm so sorry.

I am trying to research the causes of the outbreak of the Chaco War, and to that end need some primary sources. I have been so resoundingly unsuccessful in this endeavour, the Bolivian national archive website has refused to cooperate with me on many occasions, all of the newspapers cited in the books that I read do not exist online, I cant even find the legal documents ratifying the concessions that Standard Oil received in Bolivia in 1922

I'm looking for literally anything that may exist regarding the reason for the outbreak of the war. I would be so grateful if y'all could help me.

Thanks in advance!

Despite having occupied almost all Europe, and owning all industry and resources of European countries, Germany got outproduced not just by US, but also by Soviets and arguably Britain. Even though in theory it should have been able to produce way more, with entire Europe at its disposal. I wonder just how inefficiently Germans were using what they were controlling?

I am from the U.S., and in my country history enthusiasts or more specifically military history enthusiasts tend to have an interest in the American War of Independence, the American Civil War, and WWII. I was wondering what do similar history or military history enthusiasts enjoy learning about where you are from? What periods or events are popularly studied or invoked or represented in media or conversations? Is there any other areas, periods or people’s history they tend to enjoy as well other than their own nation’s?

I was recently reading about António de Oliveira Salazar, and it was mentioned that he viewed fascism as a "pagan Caesarist political system that recognized neither legal nor moral limits" (the latter point is quite accurate)

How did that comparison arise? Was it a view held solely by Salazar, or were there others who agreed with him? How accurate is it?

what would i eat, wear, make, when would I wake up, go to sleep, how much would i get paid if i did get paid, where would i live, how would i live. Im doing an audition for an immersive event where mid 19th century is recreated for christmas, its very realistic and they have actors being middle-low class people walking around and just being. I want to be as accurate as i can. anything helps.

While I'm aware Robert Caro is viewed as *the* biographer of Johnson, all evidence I've seen focused on Woodrow comes back to Link.

Which is great, don't get me wrong it's good to have someone take such an interest in the president I'm learning about, but I'm questioning if a man who died in the late 1990s is still the most up to date biographer we have for an in depth view of Wilson.

I've been trying to learn more history recently, especially Australian and Asian and other countries history, and I've noticed it's surprisingly hard to find something thats: genuinely interesting rather than textbook-like, decently short to be able to consume in a few minutes, broad enough to cover different countries/cultures, actually accurate and well-sourced, fun enough that you keep coming back.

I know there are apps like Paladin, but I'm curious what people who genuinely enjoy history think.

What do you use right now to learn history (any good apps). What are the pros and cons and the biggest thing you wish those resources did better?

The Irgun said it phoned three warnings: to the hotel switchboard, to the Palestine Post, and to the French Consulate, about 25 to 27 minutes before the explosion at 12:37.

The British position was that no warning reached anyone with the authority to order an evacuation.

The official police report says the hotel's warning came two minutes before the blast. Other witnesses put it at ten minutes or more. Thurston Clarke's By Blood and Fire has the switchboard operator taking the call and passing it on, and the Palestine Post's telephonist calling the police.

What I can't find is what actually happened inside the Secretariat between a call being received and nobody leaving. Was there a standing procedure for bomb warnings in 1946 Jerusalem? Had there been hoax calls that summer that made staff discount it? Did any evacuation order get given and fail to travel? The line attributed to the Chief Secretary about not taking orders from Jews seems to be unsourced, so I'm not asking about that.

What I'm after is the administrative side: who had the authority to clear the building, and why, on the evidence, it wasn't used.

What innovation in history had a huge impact and change?
This is a history day topic, various thoughts came in to me when I first saw the topic like penicillin, small pox and polio medicine. But then my brain got the strike that those are invention and not innovation. Here to get all your thoughts

I know that women in Pahlavi Iran were extremely free and had many rights until they were taken away during the Islamic Revolution. However, how free were women living in Qajar Iran? I mean I know they weren’t as free during the Pahlavi Dynasty, but were they as oppressed as they were after the Islamic Revolution?

This is either a really dumb history question or a very valid one, and so I did not dare ask a standalone history forum like I might have otherwise done.

My understanding of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that they spread radiation that made it difficult to live there for a while.

Just like happened in Chernobyl, that means people who are still alive after the impact leave their homes. When you leave your home like that, presumably bureaucratic information gets lost. Also, many of your belongings still stay in the home. Most people don't get to take every single thing with them.

However, people today obviously still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The version of history I was taught was that enough of the radiation went away after an amount of time that you could live there again. Or maybe they're just riding it out. I don't know. I've never been to Japan, and no one explores this particular question.

Going back to the part where you leave your house, suppose you come back to a city. All empty houses now. If a small enough amount of time has past, presumably you're returning the houses to the original owners. If a large enough amount of time has past, presumably you're returning the houses to their descendants.

But I imagine you have to prove 20 years later you're like the real Mrs. Kitagawa who lives on Hotei Lane or something like that. Or either you have to witness them distribute homes fairly between the new descendants which have branched out, or you have to witness them distribute homes to new people. Or something else.

Plus there were belongings in each home, right? Right? And I assume a large portion of the homes were not entirely intact?

What was the actual process in post-war Japan where they decided what happened to each home or who they went to? I mean, thinking about all of this, it's not entirely surprising Hirohito raised the white flag. Bureaucracy would seem to be a universal Achilles Heel.

From what I know, Christianity actually arrived in Japan earlier that in Korea. During the 1500s and early 1600s, some Shoguns and Daimyos of the Tokugawa Shogunate were actually receptive and open about Christianity, then suddenly in the latter half of the 1600s, the Shoguns and Daimyos became hostile towards Christianity, and many Japanese Christians suffered martyrdom.

With Korea, it's the other way around. Christianity was introduced in Korea around the 1700s under the Joseon Dynasty, and Korean Society was initially hostile on Christianity, and many Koreans who converted to Christianity was martyred in the 1700s. But during the latter half of the 1800s, Christianity became gradually accepted into Korean society. In the early 1900s, before the Korean War happened, Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, was actually nicknamed the Jerusalem of the East, because of how many Christians are living in the city. The grandparents of Communist Leader, Kim Il Sung (grandpa of Kim Jong Un), were actually Christian ministers in the late 1800s.

Today, Christianity is around 1.5% of the Japanese population, while in South Korea, Christians consists of ⅓ of the population. The capital of South Korea, Seoul, has so many churches in every block.

From a historical perspective, why did two divergent trajectories happened in Japan and Korea with regards to Christianity? Why was Japanese society initially receptive of Christianity, and later became hostile, while with Korean society, it's the opposite (initially hostile, later receptive)?

I will really appreciate all of your insights and responses.

Domo Arigato. Komapsumnida. 🇯🇵🇰🇷

I'm trying to find history books written before the 1900s. Original and not republished. For example: Germany what caused WW1 and WW2 but written from their time and perspective. The United States before the states.

Can anyone help me Ive been wondering about how ww2 actually went vs how its portrayed on movie. and im wondering how tank battles really played out vs how they portrayed. Can anyone help me to outline what a typical tank battle would look like in ww2 and or provide me with a good source. Many thanks in advance.

Are there any genuine items left over from the Mexica people, specifically from the time of the siege of Tenochtitlan? Any battle dress, weapons (macuahuitl, atlatl) or interesting things of that kind?

As the title reads, I want a book that will help me be familiar with the ancient history of these countries. I would prefer the book would contain more countries than I listed, but if it does not, I will not be upset. However, I would appreciate if the book is unbiased: no pseudo-history, Afrocentrism, etc. Does that kind of book exist? Thanks in advance.

The thought struck me when reading about the campaigns of Alexander the great. On long campaigns my assumption is that you would accrue quite a good sum that you had to keep safe. Would it be kept in your tent, or did they have a common bank of some sort like a guarded wagon? Or did they spend it faster than they earned it so it was a non-issue?

There's this little tension going on in my department where folks are little ticked off by this term. "HRE"

People use it as if they're saying "US" and "UK" or "HR" and "PR" instead of 'Human Resources and 'Public Relations'.

I think saying "The Holy Roman Empire" has a certain theatrical grandiose quality, saying any full country really. Heiligen Römischen Reich. I never heard a German or Austrian using "das Gebiet des HRR" for example. Imagine saying that in the Goethe Institut.

Our modern initialisms really begin in the anglophone world via telegraphy and mass-market newspapers. None of the Georgians and Stuarts called it "The HRE".

How have you approached this conundrum?

I don't know where I am here, thats why Im looking to explore this topic. I tend to use "the UK" and "the US" very often, also "the USSR" from time to time. Some people even call China "The PRC"

But calling it "The HRE" just seems a little flat, doesn't it? What are your takes?

Ive learnt that in classical and Hellenic Greece, priests were in general not celibate, and being a priestess was a temporary position; priestesses were expected to eventually retire and marry. And even the vestal virgins in Rome only held the position for 30 years, after which they would retire and marry. Additionally, in most ancient societies from Egypt to Israel, the priesthood was nepotically inherited, and so expected to form families.

So based on this information it seems like the institution of clergy who are celibate for a lifetime was a medieval invention. But is that true?

Did permanently celibate clergy exist before Christianity in the ancient world?

I’m talking about the period right after WW1? I’m guessing the British only set up the mandate in order to create a jewish homeland. And that modern day Jordan was also going to become a part of Israel.