I really hope this doesn't come across as antisemitic because that is not my intention at all.

I'm curious why the Jewish population was given modern day Isreal after the second world War. From what I understand, that region was taken over by the Ottoman Empire, which was then conquered by the British, but was still effectively Muslim in culture.

While I understand that historically that is their homeland, many nations have been conquered (especially by Britain) but this is the only major instance I am aware of where land was returned like this. There are small examples such as the U.S. and Canada providing reservation land to compensate for taking their land (which hardly counts as compensation), but why was such an offer extended to the Jewish population, unless it solely was intended as a global apology for the Holocaust? And if so, what about the other people's outside of the Jewish population which suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime? Was there a prior precident set that causes/affected this?

In addition, what came of the people's who were living in that region, did they have a choice in the matter, how were they effected and how did they react?

If I recall, the Soviet Union petitioned to have all member soviet nations participate individually in the UN, this was not allowed. Why then are individual EU nations allowed to retain their memberships?

The mongols fought against most eastern-european nations and went as far as Austria.Were they aware of the western europe nations such as france,england,aragon,castille and portugal?

When one looks at the Majestic or Canopus class of British pre-dreadnaughts, it's easy to see the growth and progression towards HMS Dreasnaught. And while each of these classes of ships (and the ships themselves) had variations, they were relatively standardized.

Then there's the French with Carnot, Jauréguiberry, Bouvet, Masséna, etc were all substantially different in shape, variations in armaments, etc. I understand politics played a role in (mis?)shaping these ships but was there less centralized oversight than in the UK? Or was France hoping to find some secret advantage with all the variations? Why wouldn't somewhere, somehow, speak up about having to support so many various calibre of weapons?

And the tumblehome with all those portholes and turrets and casemate turrets and towers and various smoke stacks...how could they have fared in high seas during a real shooting engagement? They look like 1 or 2 shots from either broadside could flip them right over.

Edit: now that I think about this, is it a perfect example of waterfall vs agile methodology?

Were they free range lecturers like on a modern day lecture circuit relying on speaking engagements and private events?

Or was there some sort of socialized "Lecture Board of Athens" that provided for them?

Or were they street buskers, saying thought provoking things relying on tips?

So I'm looking for examples of pre Roman British pagan art of any sort but preferably English.

Wyoming especially. How does a word from the Munsee language, native to eastern Pennsylvania, come to be applied to a state in the mountain west (not to mention no less than 7 Midwestern towns and cities and one in Australia)?

A sizable contingent of the folks I follow on Twitter are full-on Marxist-Leninists (MtG twitterspace is weird), and are often retweeting Marxist talking points and literature. Something that was retweeted recently that caught my eye was a person claiming that Stalin actually tried to resign from his position as General Secretary(?) of the USSR at least four times. The poster linked a letter that Stalin wrote officially requesting to be dismissed, as well as an article that included a transcript of a meeting where he asked to be released from duty but was supposedly talked-over by a group that wanted him to continue in his position. How much truth is there to these statements, and how much of it is misleading i.e. Stalin "requesting" to be relieved but secretively being behind those who argued for him to stay, etc.

A few days ago I was listening to a YouTube video, and the narrator said "The Byzantines remained stronger than the Sassanids throughout most of their history". This seemed strange to me, as judging by most Byzantine-Sassanian wars, it was the exact opposite. Anastasius, Justin and Justinian all suffered heavily against the Sassanids, and always seemed on the back foot. Tiberius and Maurice seemed to have relative success, and they were focusing all the resources of the Empire on war against the Persians. And, of course, Phocas and Heraclius were barely getting by. So, what's the historical consensus? Who was stronger and why?

I was just listening to this book on Audible and it struck me how fearsome the Kurds were, according to Xenophon, and how they're still known for valor in the face of overwhelming forces to this day. My question is, are the Kurds we're reading about in Syria, and nearby cohorts in Iraq and Turkey, direct descendants of the ancient Kurds in Xenophon's day?

After what I've read both from him and on this site I know I should know better than to take anything Gildas wrote at face value but I suppose an early conversion of the Britons made sense to me until reading a book by Todd that posits there's no proof of any significant conversion of the British before 400 (and that it is unlijely).

The problem then is do I disregard both extremes given that Gildas seems a part of a strongly entrenched Christian society given how he writes and who he is seemingly writing to only a century later and that the life of Saint Germanus mentions Pelagian heresy but not Paganism or even apostasy?

Is there a consensus on the christianisation of the insular celts? I have halsell's worlds of arthur on its way; what other books or articles would be a good look into this?

At some point, the Salem Witch Trials transitioned from an old shame to a selling point for tourists - do we know when & why this happened?

Whenever I see references to US Civil War infantry it is usually in reference to the use of muzzle loaders. It's understandable since only a small amount of soldiers would use breech loading weapons in the Civil War, but it makes me wonder if US soldiers changed tactics when using/facing them.

The impression I get from the Franco-Prussian war was that breech loading rifles forced both combatants to rely much more heavily on open order formations. Meanwhile in the Austro-Prussian war Prussian infantry with breech loaders had an enormous advantage against Austrians with muzzle loaders, and many Austrian attempts at charging in closed formations failed. I wonder if a similar change occurred during the US Civil War with breechloader equipped troops.

I recently heard it argued that East Germany's denazification policy was much more effective, but from my googling I've been unable to find any sort of easy comparison between the two?

With that being said, what policy did the DDR and FRG use in contrast to eachother, and which was more effective? Were either of them violent etc?

Thanks in advance. :)