Recent comments in /f/history

Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jbuckxr wrote

They used coinage, or tally sticks, or any kind of common unit of exchange they agreed on. The important thing was having a medium of currency to enable trade; what was fairly uniform was the realisation that the form itself was not that important. It didn't matter if the medium was valuable in and of itself. By the early medieval age coinage was well established.

5

montanunion t1_jbtzah9 wrote

> Siberia was colonized by Russia at around the same time, and using many of the same methods, as the British, French, and Spanish were using in North America. In this case the Indigenous population would be whatever native Siberians were living there before Russian settlers came.

I think in many ways it's much less comparable to the British, French and Spanish colonialization of North America and more like the European expansions within Europe (for example France with Alsace or Spain with the Basque country). The area of the JAO for example was under Chinese control (as part of Manchuria) until the mid-1800s. After that, it came to Imperial Russia, who settled Cossacks from Transbaikalia there to secure the border, ethnic Russians and Ukrainians also moved into the area. But these settlers came in the Imperial Time, long before the JAO was officially established in 1934.

So before the JAO was established, there were Cossacks, Russians, Ukrainians plus some Koreans and Tungusic people - but it was relatively sparsely inhabited. Since the Soviet Union was also afraid of the border being vulnerable, they wanted to settle people there in larger numbers.

At the same time, the big Jewish settlements in the USSR at the time were in Ukraine (before the war, Jews were the largest population group in Odesa, for example) - but there were also pretty frequent pogroms against them and the situation was tense.

So the long-term plan was to have the Jews live in a new Autonomous Oblast (giving them an amount of self-determination, though mostly on paper, thus counteracting Zionism which was a pretty popular ideology among Soviet Jews in the 1920s-30s and simultaneously appeasing tensions with antisemites in other places) and therefore bringing development to the border.

Birobidzhan (the capital) is a relatively young city and was mostly developed under Stalin. In the early years, relatively many Jews came (but again, they were always a minority), but the problem was that Stalin was very antisemitic, so the Jewish political institutions were very often targeted.

As far as I know, the people who were already living in the area were never supposed to leave and in fact, non-Jews also migrated there along with Jews the whole time. Making it Jewish was more of a prestige object, but on the whole, the Soviet Union at the time was quite suspicious of religion, so it's not like it was supposed to be an actually culturally Jewish place in the sense that it was supposed to have Jewish inspired laws or anything.

3

jezreelite t1_jbtu75j wrote

Root canal therapy wasn't invented until the mid-18th century, so the only real treatment for severely decayed or abscessed teeth was to pull them.

In Europe, this was most often performed by a barber-surgeon and painkiller was limited to a swig of alcohol, if that. This is a quote from a popular history book about Catherine the Great's experience with dentists of her time:

>One day as a teenager, after suffering weeks from a decayed tooth, the future Catherine the Great agreed to have it pulled. A “surgeon” came to her room armed with a pair of pliers and yanked out the offending tooth—and a chunk of jawbone as well. Blood gushed all over her gown. The swelling and pain were so shocking that Catherine did not leave her room for a month, and even when the swelling went down, the dentist’s five fingers were imprinted in blue and yellow bruises at the bottom of her cheek.

11

en43rs t1_jbtrlct wrote

Tons. It wasn't a secret at all. We have communications between the Soviet and the Allies and the Americans especially had asked Stalin for a long time to attack Japan in order to lessen the burden of the Pacific front. The answer was always "yes, when we're done with Germany". And so when they were done with Germany in may, they put a lot of troops in the east and attacked.

It wasn't a secret it was a military plan coordinated with the rest of the Allies.

As for their plans for Japan specifically it's a bit harder to determine, true. But they still got Korea and tried to took the whole peninsula in 1950 (Korean war and all that).

6

Thibaudborny t1_jbtq9w0 wrote

In broad lines, it will define socioeconomic conditions, which in turn will influence the sociopolitical superstructure. Think, for example, how you won't have a land of plenty up on the slopes of the Alps with early agriculture.

More niche perhaps, take medieval Flanders, the prevalence of flooding in the coastal areas prompted the formation of large-scale land holdings, directed towards commercial exploitation, creating a proto-capitalist dynamic & in part underpinning the wealth of this region. Once you move a little inland, you see a drastic change in the structure of landownership, with widespread subsistence farming being the norm, and the land being divided in a multitude of smaller holdings.

3

en43rs t1_jbtpxbu wrote

A Japan Soviet war wasn't a hypothetical. The USSR did declare war on Japan in August of 45. Ad no, Japan didn't think Russia would invade, because they had a non aggression pact that was supposed to last up until april 1946. That's why the soviet border was basically not defended and the soviet took Manchuria in ten days when they declared war in August.

And yes, the idea that Japan surrendered to the Americans not so much because of the bombs (although, that is a factor to consider) but because they were afraid of what the Soviet may do (especially to the Emperor) is a theory supported by historians.

We can't be sure, since the Japanese burned a lot of records in August, but it's a theory that can and is argued for.

12