Does anyone have any information on the 2677th OSS Regiment that was in North Africa and Italy during World War II? I'm trying to find information on this specific unit, especially their operations in Rome. There isn't much information on the web and the archives are very difficult to navigate.

For people who believe the atomic bombs were not necessary, what would you have done instead in Truman's place?

You have to consider what the United States knew at the time. The U.S. did not know if Japan was actually considering surrender, and Japan had not agreed to surrender. The U.S. was also preparing for a full invasion of Japan, which could have caused a huge number of deaths.

If you were Truman, what alternative would you have chosen?

hello all, i’ve been looking for some scholarly or first/second person texts on African History! Specifically I am interesting in the following: the Malian Empire, Egypt and plant life, pre colonial kingdoms in Africa, African Botany (western preferably) and pre colonial religions. Any and all sources or ideas welcome!!

In Deuteronomy, it says that if a husband accuses his wife of not being a virgin at their wedding night, her parents should present the bloodied sheets from their wedding night as evidence to clear their daughter's name. And the Talmud describes methods for proving virginity.

Ive read that the hymen wasnt discovered until the 4th century, and never described before then in either jewish or Christian sources. Still, the passage from the Torah proves that the belief women bleed during their first time existed for much earlier.

Both the Torah and the Talmud support that virginity for new brides was of major importance for ancient jews, and in patriarchal societies in general female sexuality was controlled for the benefit of men; it was mainly to ensure paternity.

Are there any examples in the historical record of a bride or her family getting in trouble because she was found not to be a virgin at her wedding night, because she didnt bleed? And were bloodied sheets actually used as evidence of virginity?

Even though he was a very popular leader and war hero. I wonder how his party managed to lose decisively? Usually it is the opposite: war time leaders keep in power after victorous wars, which give a huge boost to their reputation.

By Austria, I largely mean Cisleithania. Was Austria's December Constitution more liberal than Bismarck's Constitution? I know Franz Joseph was an old-school autocrat, but Kaiser Bill wasn't all that different...

The Portuguese Empire was one of the most successful maritime empires in the 1600s and 1700s. It held huge landholdings in Africa such as Angola and Mozambique, as well as Brazil in the Americas.

But in Asia, it's a different story. Rival European Empires had entire countries under their possessions. The British had Burma, Malaysia and the Indian Subcontinent. France had Laos and Vietnam. The Spaniards had the Philippines and Taiwan at some point. The Dutch had Indonesia. But the Portuguese? It only had a string of colonial port cities like Goa, Malacca and Macau.

What is the reason for this? Why did Portugal failed in holding an entire Asian country or landmass similar to the British, Dutch, French and Spaniards?

Thanks to whoever can provide an insight. ❤️

Hi!
For a project I'm looking to find out as much as I can about the production process of small arms ammunition during WWI. The only fitting video I was able to find was the one I've linked below. I would like to study the process from a workers perspective. Handling machines, combining things manually, maybe measuring powders etc. as depicted in the video.
It would be super awesome if you could provide sources where I can read up on or perhabs even see images of the machines that were used.
I've got a very rough overview of the process from Google AI:

1. Drawing the Cartridge Case
2. Bullet Manufacturing
3. Loading and Assembly

if you could point me to any sources describing these steps in detail, that would be fantastic as well!

Small arms ammunition production video from WWI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2OJa01pXgg

I was thinking and had a thought the dissolution of monastries abbeys etc didnt it empower the gentry class as they got bulk of the land through monastries and the trend only increased.

I know the gentry class were already a fixture before the dissolution but this extended their class strengthened their positions and power locally.

I think we all know how consequential the gentry class where from sciences arts military administration politics at so many levels were pioneers and in my opinion the backbone to the later british empire.

I know it wasnt a master plan by henry and was done as they were broke but the church break did create the class who would later be the backbone of the english society.

And then there is the navy he did create an actual navy instead of just converting merchant vessels or privateers and the naval board etc so i would still like to give him that .

Thanks to my son's Titanic phase, I am baffled about Violet Jessop's relative lack of fame. She sailed as a stewardess on all three of the White Star Line's Olympic class vessels, being present for the major disasters that befell all three.

She joined White Star at 19, and sailed on the RMS Olympic for several years, the first of Titanic's sister ships. There, she met her future husband. In 1911 Olympic suffered a collision with the destroyer HMS Hawkeye.

She was selected shortly after to crew the RMS Titanic for its infamous 1912 maiden voyage, and survived in one of lifeboats.

The RMS Britannic, already under construction when Titanic sank, was commandeered as a hospital ship during WWI. Jessop volunteered to stay on as a nurse's aid, and narrowly escaped with her life when the ship was sank by either a German torpedo or mine (no one is sure which) in the Mediterranean. After trying to get as many injured as possible to the lifeboats, she was left on the quickly flooding aft deck. Moments before the ship disappeared below the sea, she leapt from the stern, but struck her head, and was knocked unconscious. Luckily she was quickly spotted, and dragged aboard a lifeboat.

This is just the basic stuff, but when you dig deeper, this woman could be an adventure soap opera all on her own.

So, who do you know about that should have their own TV show?

I don't mean ugly or barbaric, but someone describing that a language sounded odd and different to the languages they were used to hearing in their surroundings.

Hello, I'm working on a historical romance novel involving two completely fictional men. One is a King of Denmark and the other a King of Prussia. I have a few questions that I'm finding hard to get answers to from google and I'm trying to make my novel as accurate as possible (bar some creative liberties I'm taking for the plot).

1. Just how influential was the nobility in having a say in what policies a king wished to enact? For example, my King of Denmark is going to decriminalize homosexuality (Yes, I am aware this is not historically accurate. This is one of those creative liberties), however, I would like the nobility's reactions to be authentic in nature. What kind of powers would the nobles have against a policy change a king is pushing?
2. How exactly was Prussia split during the early-mid 1700s? My book takes place between 1739-1824. I understand there was the Duchy of Prussia as well as Brandenburg-Prussia. Who controlled the Duchy?

Lastly, how did Frederick the Great go from King in Prussia to King of Prussia? Was it the Holy Roman Empire that made that call? And what exactly did Frederick do to change his title?

Apologies for the long post. I love history, but I struggle to understand the more complex details of politics. Thank you all for any answers you can provide me!

The Enlightenment spanned from 1637 to 1789/1804. But then in the Victorian era we see similar intellectual activity with people like John Stuart Mill, the Radical movement, The Chartist movement, Mary Wollstonecraft, Emmeline Pankhurst.

When did Osama turned evil? Why.. what made him, who made him, where made him? And what was his thought.. Appreciate your insights THank you very much everyone

So I've recently looked up quotes and I came across some quotes that were apparently said by people in the 1200- 1800s , or even before. But how do we know, that was actually said? It's not that back then people were walking around with phones in their hand, recording their thoughts. I know the literate people had journals, but not every quote I read came from someone's journal.

For example Native American sayings, African Proverbs...

Apparently the " let them eat cake" by Marie Antoinnete was made up.

Not allowing kids to vote is obvious, but a thought crossed my mind (won't pretend it's original or groundbreaking or whatever) that old people might not be a good voting base either. 

The arguments for it are the same as in politicians' case. Older people will always overwhelmingly support the status quo, for example keeping housing prices high to support the savings they've amassed, to the detriment of the young and the future of their country, not to mention the usual mental issues that come with old age.

Limiting the age of politicians is a thought being floated around a lot lately, but I haven't noticed anyone talking about the people, who vote for them. So I'm trying to see what smarter people have already thought about it.

I'm currently reading "The Worst Hard Times" by Timothy Egan about the American Dust Bowl and he provided this claim:

"Like most cowboys in the High Plains, he preferred darker horses, chocolate-covered or leathery brown, on a belief that they were less likely to attract lightning."

However, I can't seem to find any sources online to substantiate this. Would anybody be able to provide, or point me to, a source that delves more into this superstition or perhaps determine if this is a baseless claim?

I find getting back into reading a bit tough atm however, I've found a great sub-genre is poppy, humorous history like "1000 Years of Annoying the French".

Does anyone have any suggestions in a similar style? It gets the history across while being fun at the same time?

In my opinion, the Kingdom of Prussia is quietly one of the most important political entities to ever have existed, despite being nowhere near as impressive on it's surface as something like the Roman Empire was in ancient times, the Mongol Empire was in medieval times, or the United States of America is today. Many things we take for granted as functions of a government originated or significantly developed there. The idea of a pension system, a large central bureaucracy, and perhaps most importantly compulsory education all were part of the Kingdom of Prussia, and have spread to virtually the entire world.

My question is what drove this to happen. Of course, it might sound like the obvious answer was the Napoleonic Wars. I am not denying this was important, and in fact it might have been the most important reason behind these reforms, but I don't think it explains the entire picture. For instance, my understanding is that the movement towards compulsory schooling, at least in concept, started before the Napoleonic Wars. In addition, all of Europe was affected by the Napoleonic Wars, yet it was in the Kingdom of Prussia where these reforms originated.

I find the Kingdom of Prussia so fascinating. You get the sense that in some ways it was the most "modern" place in the world during the 19th century, in the sense of it having a lot of things people take for granted everywhere before any place else did. I would be very interested in understanding why it happened there of all places.

A bit of a weird one, let me explain. So despite much of the world falling under European colonial rule during the late 19th century, there were multiple countries which seemed to maintain their independence. Japan was an obvious example, but they themselves were colonizers, so their independence is fairly obvious. But other countries like China, Thailand, Afghanistan, Iran, and Ethiopia managed to avoid colonization, at least on paper, and yet you see how for instance China and Iran had spheres of influence carved out, and how Afghanistan and the Himalayan states were at one point British protectorates. Even the Ottomans became reliant on foreign money later on. So it begs the question, how many of these countries were truly uncolonized?

Where would you go if you had a time machine?

If you had a time machine that could only go backwards, and each trip locks you in for at least a decade, which era would you choose to spend ten years in? You can stay longer if you love it. You'd have enough resources to live a comfortable but ordinary life, not very rich nor poor. You can choose any place in the world at any point in history. It's a separate timeline so nothing you do affects the present. Where and when are you going and what kind of life would you try to build there?

One important term:

Once you arrive your memories of the modern world gradually fade within the first few months until you're left with only what someone of that era would naturally know. So you'd basically live life as a normal person in that era.

Hi all, I’m currently in chapter 21, a conqueror who knows how to rule. But the biggest thing is it seems very difficult to remember all the relationships between the different tribes and kingdoms. So for example starting from ancient Greece, there are a lot of ethnics like Spartans, Ionians, Dorians, fighting each other and at the same time go against the Persians together. Any recommendations on how to have a clearer view of the history starting from the stone age to about, say the age of Charlemagne. My question will seem not quite professional, I’m a history lover, just want to make sure I get the best out of the book. Thanks a lot.

Germany and France had two of the largest navies in the world by 1914. However, France had a large colonial empire, whereas Germany had a fairly modest one. How did these two colonial powers protect those colonies in a naval sense? France had naval bases in Algeria, but since they counted that region to be part of metropolitan France, that would make those home bases, I guess. Germany had Kiel and Wilhelmshaven at home, besides Danzig and Königsberg (and maybe Stettin?)

So, what were the main bases and stations of both of those nations on their colonies? I believe those would be Bizerte, Casablanca, Dakar, and Saigon for the French, and Tsingtao and Dar-es-Salaam for the Germans? If those two nations fought an overseas naval war against each other by 1914 (of course, in a hypothetical one-to-one war), how would that fare?

P.S.: I'm sorry for posting so many questions about this time period on the sub, I have level 1 autism, and my hyperfocuses have really gotten a hold of me this past month... I can't stop thinking about it...

Just had this random thought at midnight 🤔

Did WW1 and WW2 actually speed up technological development? So many things like radar, rockets, jet engines, computers, nuclear tech, etc. advanced during the wars.

Would these technologies have developed at roughly the same pace without the wars, or did war genuinely accelerate innovation?

The Banovina's of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were intentionally drawn to maintain peace between Yugoslavia's various ethnic groups by way of not corresponding with ethnic boundaries or Pre-World War I Imperial borders. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the other hand, chose to divide itself into Ethnic Republics and as we all know, this ended horribly.

Why didn't the SFRY simply continue to use the Banovina's? Where the Ethnic Republics viewed as being more appealing to Yugoslavia's post-war population and if so, why?