The Baltic republics (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) were pretty developed before the Soviet annexation. At first the Soviets were heavy-handed and thus were seen as occupiers. After the WWII the Forest Brothers continued their resistance against the Soviet government for several years with popular support. In the late 1980s the independence movements had much more support in the Baltics than in the other Soviet Republics, with 25% participating in the Baltic Way human chain protest.

The Kremlin must have known about the rebelliousness of the Baltics. It was further amplified by their geographic proximity to the west, the Baltic maritime traffic being a window thereto, and most Estonians illegally watching Finnish TV, which permitted them to see the western way of life. Did the Soviet government try to defuse the resentment and placate the population by allowing them to have higher standards of living? Did the people of the other Soviet republics visiting the Baltics think that it's unfair that they get more consumer goods? Did the Soviet government acknowledge and try to explain these differences?

In the Code of Nesilim it states:

"If someone slay a man or woman in a quarrel, he shall bring this one. He shall also give four persons, either men or women, he shall let them go to his home."

What does that mean? What does it mean to "bring this one" and "give 4 persons". Who are the 4 persons being given too?

Coprophilia is extremely gross, so I won't describe it in detail, but if you don't know what it is, it's easy enough to look up. I've seen some sources that claim Hitler was a coprophile, but I'm not sure if that's historically accurate. It makes me wonder if it's like the claim that Hitler would get angry and fall to the floor and chew on the carpet. That claim turned out to be wrong. It was the result of a mis-translation. If anyone knows whether Hitler genuinely had this sexual perversion, I would be grateful if you would speak up.

I've avoided any detailed descriptions in order to keep this post on a professional level. This is a part of history (if true), and thus is something intelligent history buffs should be able to discuss without being lewd. I'm not trying to steer a conversation in a disgusting direction. I just want my knowledge of history to be accurate.

How did Romans and other ancient civilizations, track the different levels of citizenship (voting rights, military participation, etc). Furthermore, were there any forms of early fraud detection by these governments against fake citizenship?

I find it especially bizarre due to the fact that Quebec is so French, and pre-repatriation, the Constitution of Canada was still technically a British legal document rather than Canadian. What reasons did Quebec have for wanting to preserve this relic of the British Commonwealth era?

Is there a go-to book on global, historical slavery to read? One that discusses al forms of slavery throughout history, not just American slavery?

Maybe it even includes misperceptions of slavery, like Irish slavery in America?

Basically, I want a resource to use to combat those who want to downplay American slavery by justifying it with other forms found in history. Or, find what real comparisons there are, in case I’ve missed key aspects of slavery.

I've often heard it said that the french military at the start of ww2 was equal or stronger than the German military, yet simultaneously the French industrial base and manpower pool were both smaller. How did the French manage to maintain a military on the same or larger scale than that of the Germans in spite the Germans having a larger economy, population and actively preparing for war

I am looking to glean some info off the experts here. I am running a dnd game and the playrrs have taken a keep as their own, and i am looking at populating it in a reasonably realistic fashion.

I’m not completely new to Anglo-Saxon history, but I’m looking for something pretty comprehensive that goes into good detail about the relationships/tensions between different kingdoms, as well as giving a good overview of the overall period up to 1066.

“The Anglo-Saxon World” by N.J Higham and M.J Ryan has good reviews, but if anyone has read anything superb, I’m open for suggestions.

I had read, on all-knowing wikipedia, that during the South African Wars zebra-mule hybrids were used to haul guns. Of course, being wikipedia, I'm a little skeptical about this claim; do we have any more details? Were zebra hybrids typically used for such work?

... and were they consciously, overtly anti-intellectual (as seems common in modern 'populist' movements) or was this just a by-product of their other beliefs/an anachronism?

Hey,

I understand that to become a historian you must attend university and further education and what not.

To become a local historian on a particular subject, do I need to peruse some further education for this?

I love to research into the history of previous Victorian psychiatric asylums and other inpatient facilities that dealt with with mental health problems. I am in fact working on a book of my local former asylum.

I see it quite often that some local authors are listed as local historians.

There doesnt seem to be much information when I search how to become a local historian.

So can I give myself this title or do I need further education to cemente this title?

Thanks! Ross

I understand Portugal joined the Allies during the war, so how could Spain not have had any contribution that is worth mentioning in the second, otherwise quite detailed and enlightening historical overview the Great War?

It's not even noted that they stayed neutral; I find it hard to believe that a country bordering on 2 belligerents, and probably affected by the blockade and the total submarine warfare just as much as Germany and Britain would not merit at least a few lines in passing.