[removed]

[removed]

Adding on to the other answers, Japanese soldiers were expecting an easy victory in China, and when Japan started taking far more casualties than expected almost immediately, the Japanese reacted brutally: partly in the hopes of causing terrified acquiesce, and partly because the Japanese soldiers were just that furious.

It might seem odd, but Japanese training actually emphasized brutality as a means to make up logistical shortfalls, with beatings and bizarre punishments common in training as a result. Naturally, civilians under them were treated even worse, and this wasn't helped by Japanese propaganda lying about how "grateful" the locals were to Japan, which made the subsequent local resistance also feel unjust at best, leading to worse reprisals.

[deleted]

Was there ever a Liberian idea of "Manifest Destiny"? The country was after all made by americans and inspired by americans so it wouldn't be surprising if they had their own little manifest destiny they never manifested

For starters, you need to read Thucydides and Herodotus, definitely all of Thucydides (followed by the start of Xenophon's Hellenica which picks up literally continuing where Thucydides stopped). Herodotus is worth reading the whole thing, but at minimum 1.70 onward from book 1, skip book 2, read book 3, and read Book 5 onward. Any good source is going to discuss these events with the assumption that you've already read Thucydides and Herodotus.

On the Peloponnesian War, Donald Kagan's works are a bit dated, but will be easy enough to get through. For the Persian Wars, give Philip Souza's work a try, The Greek and Persian Wars, 499-386 B.C

For an overview, Hans van Wees' Greek Warfare is a book I will forever recommend. It's something I still will thumb through when working on my own stuff, but will also have students read it because it's written in a style that's really easy to follow even if you don't have a lot of experience or knowledge on the topic.

That will hold you over for awhile, after that try and figure out which bits you want to focus in on and we can recommend some more specific things.

[removed]

>did that actually happen or was it communist fabricated propaganda?

It actually happened, and even Nazis say it did. It's not a communist fabrication, nor were most of the people killed communists; the CCP didn't take over China until 1949.

>my second question is that why did Japan invade china and korean?

Japan sought the establishment of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a thinly-veiled attempt at creating a larger Japanese empire, subjugating other countries for their resources, and ousting other empires from territory they wanted. Japan sought both superiority over other nations and resources to assist its economy, not least oil, to avoid the USA being able to pressure the country via further embargoes.

Racism is not just about actual skin colour, but perception of that 'race'.

[removed]

They used mirrors, we know that 🙄

[removed]

[removed]

Hello everyone!

I'm currently looking for some book suggestions regarding the Peloponnesian War and Greeco-Persian Wars.

Apart from covering the main events and general history of these conflicts, I would really like to read about the battles that took place, maybe with some imagery regarding the battelfieds and the different tactics that were used, as well as an overview of the military structure and culture of each of the involved parties.

If you have any recommendation for books (or even documentaries!) that would cover these topics please let me know.

Thank you!

There's never one single cause to something like this. The other poster mentioned shipping, and German attacks on American shipping was a big part of it. The Zimmerman telegram was the final straw. But there were concerns about loans to England and France and there was natural affinity to for England that Americans tend towards in foreign policy. There were other ideas that France and England were more similar to democracies that Germany and Austro-Hungaria.

So, it was a confluence of all those factors, some being more important like shipping. Some being harder to quantify, like natural sympathy for the English.

[removed]

[removed]

In re: to the Nanjing massacre, it wasn't a communist government at the time. And there is a lot of contemporary reporting of the issue. The stories of atrocities coming out of China were the motivation for the US to impose sanctions on Japan. So, at the time it was fairly well known what was going on.

Also, the war crimes tribunals set up after the war went through a lot of effort to document what happened. This was in the hands of the allied powers, but was mostly done by the US and the UK b/c of Russia's limited participation in the PTO until the very end of the war.

In regards to Korea, they have a lot of mineral resources that Japan needed.

Best books on post-Soviet Russia?

The absence of evidence is evidence itself. How did they illuminate the complete darkness of the corridors without leaving any trace of carbon residue?

There was a good /r/askhistorians about this if you're curious.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6batyz/why_would_ben_franklin_call_germans_and_swedes/

Read Iris Changs book "The Rape of Nanking " over 200,000 men where slaughtered over 20,000 rapes by Japanese soldiers.And Japanese invaded because they wanted China and Korea,conquest very simple.

How were restaurants made "more accessible to the middle class [and not just the wealthy]" after the Great Depression and WW2?

This comment by a deleted account over on Ask Historians mentions that era as the time when France lost ground as the capitol of restaurants and fine dining, while, simultaneously, the restaurant industry in America became more accessible to the middle class.

Did he say Swedes were swarthy? Sami maybe, but not Swedes..

It is so interesting how the language we use is so loaded with our culture, and our culture reflects our language! We insist on translating into our language (for obvious reasons) but then hate when this translation needs redoing or reexplaing in new contexts. No translation is done without the translators inherent biased and culture being infused in.