Hi!

I'm currently researching European politics during the Second World War and am having real trouble locating the primary sources from a group called "Groupe Collaboration"(full name-  "Collaboration, groupement des énergies françaises pour l'unité continentale "), they put out a journal and wrote articles explaining why - as predominantely "Left Wing" intellectuals - they had chosen to collaborate. I'm sure this must be digitised somewhere but for the life of me I can't find it - only catalogue links for physical books in France. Does anybody have any ideas as where I could find such texts? Im particularly interested in an article called "Pourquoi nous croyons en la collaboration" as it could be very useful for my future book. It doesn't matter if they haven't been translated (in fact I'd prefer the original French!). Sorry if there is a blindingly obvious place that I'm not looking!

[deleted]

Let's say you are a peasant living in France. Right now the black plague is still bopping it's way along the silk road and you have never even heard of it. You and your family farm rye in order to survive. when you go to church for service, what events would happen? what sort of sermon would be given? What sort of tithes would you give? (Not religous, just curious)

So I'm far from an expert, but after thinking about it, and looking it over on wikipedia, it seems that every country that had its own internal, organic communist revolution was basically an agrarian society with an overwhelming peasant or poor farmer class, and then a small, wealthy ruling class.

Marx predicted that factory workers would organize in factories to wrest ownership and control of the means of production from the owners, but that doesn't seem to be what played out. One of the first major projects of the Soviet Union was to industrialize the country -- meaning it wasn't an industrial country beforehand. Broadly, the same seems to hold for China, Mongolia, Cuba, etc.

Some of the smaller countries got support from the Soviet Union and other communist states during their revolution, but that doesn't seem to change the basic motivation of a poor farmer class rising up against a landed class, which doesn't precisely align with what Marx predicted. Some countries were occupied by the Soviet Union after WWII, but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm looking at the ones that had their own revolution that overthrew their own governments.

Communists and Marxists seem especially interested in political theory. Have any of them ever noticed this pattern, and how it diverges from Marxist "orthodoxy"?

Did Italian Unification have popular support among the people of Italy or did the average Italian identify more with their local country such as Two Sicilies or Piedmont.

Hello, greetings. I am currently watching a film that takes place in The Great War. More specifically, 1918. In the movie, it is shown that a “Doughboy” had a small glass bottle and inside were some little white pills. A little bit later a British Major asked one of his other British officers “What are those? Seems to be eating it like candy” to which the officer replies that it is cocaine and it seems to be handed out with almost all their rations.

My question is, Did the United States troops get supplied with cocaine? Or is this just something that Hollywood wanted to put in the film. And if so, was almost every soldier supplied with a little bottle of coke pills?

Thank you for reading/helping, Nalle Puh

Ps. Flashlights? Battery powered? Were they a thing? Or was it mainly flame sourced lights?

During WWI both sides tunneled underneath enemy positions and placed mines to blowup that section of enemy trench however, the effects of the mines seemed to have little effect on ending the stalemate. Why did either side not dig a tunnel that bypassed the enemy defences which could move troops safely behind enemy lines undetected, then once enough troops had been massed they could attack the enemy's rear and possibly launch a frontal assault as well to trap the enemy between the two forces?

Hello people! I was wondering if any of you could recommend a book (or series of books) that talks about the history of Constantinople from 395 up until the present day if possible. It might seem like a lot but some time ago I heard about a book like this, but I didn't look into it. Having said this, does anyone know of such a book?

Ordinarily, the cause is shrouded in the group terminology 'Americans', as though all Americans equally wanted to fight the war. However, from some reading, it seems to be true that there were leaders in America who wanted it to happen more than anyone else. These are generally grouped as the founding fathers (although there isn't a 1:1 map, since likely not all of them were interested in personally participating in politics and government).

Then, you surely had a lot of people who thought it would save them money and grant them freedoms, so they were willing to fight too. I don't think these people alone would have ever fought the rebellion though. Or maybe they would have tried something small but quickly given up (much like we saw with Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion).

You also had British loyalists, who are generally glossed over in American history books as dumbasses and/or traitors (or perhaps a few wealthy merchants who liked the status quo).

How accurate is what I've said so far?

Now, concerning the actual leaders of the rebellion, what was in it for them? Would you say they saw the colonial scheme, and they wanted to be the leaders of it themselves? They wanted to not pay taxes to Britain, not out of fairness, but out of greed? And from the very beginning, they wanted to protect American business with the military and expand outward (westward) as much as possible?

I'm not trying to steer the discussion in one direction; I'm just trying to lay out my understanding of the situation, and any part of it can be corrected or expanded upon. And I think that understanding is necessary to also understand what I actually mean by the question in the title.

Ancient Greek and Roman texts like Plato and Cicero are very much entrenched in Western canon. We all have to read ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. My question is though, why don't we have any famous Phoenician and Carthaginian philosophers that we study? They were just as wealthy and civilized as the Greeks and Romans were, so shouldn't they have also produced many many valuable bodies of knowledge?

The Spanish Revolution of 1936 has been constantly the theme of many books, songs, future political movements etc, but I lack information about it.

From what I’ve gathered, plants like cannabis and the opium poppy have been harvested for a very long time. So if a regular citizen wanted to indulge in some vices (besides alcohol), could they? How accessible was it and were there any subcultures that developed from the usage?

Marathon, thermopelea platea and cunaxa (as well as certain conquests of the greek cities by the pelopenesian league? ) all seem to demonstrate the unquestionable superiority of the Greek hoplite system vs the Persian system. So given the massive economic power and time the Persian empire had why didn't they create good infantry units?

After the immense focus on the mental damage taken during World War 1, I was wondering if there is any records of soldiers suffering PTSD or similar during the middle ages or the napoleonic wars?

What exactly did they do to spread it? Did they shit in the food and the people ate it? Did they bite people?

Looking around online I looked up a list of British armies during WW2. Something that struck me as odd was the naming of these armies. Apparently the first armies the British had was the Eighth Army and Ninth Army, forming in 1941 and serving to 45. In 42 the First Army and Tenth Army was formed, both serving to 1943. The British had according to this list 8 armies in the period 41-45, with the Fourth being fictitious, for military deception purposes. But why then the Ninth Army, Tenth Army, Twelfth Army and Fourteenth Army? And why no Third Army, Fifth Army, Sixth Army and Seventh Army?

I read that initially, he wanted peaceful solutions to international problems, but was he actively involved in giving orders to the armed forces during the war? Was his initial hesitancy responsible for the later treatment? Or did the common people of Japan have any attachment with the emperor or the Dynasty?

So my title is pretty straightforward, I’m currently attempting to learn about Ostrogothic Italy. I only know of Thodoric The Great and Odacer but I want to know about them.

I’m more of a visual learner for sure, but finding information online is scant at best.

Any information you have, or any place you know of where I can get information would be super helpful.

[deleted]