See a summary of Preston's view of Orwell's depiction of the POUM in Preston's guardian piece, " George Orwell’s Spanish civil war memoir is a classic, but is it bad history?" The main area where they conflict is Preston says at one point hundreds of POUM soldiers left the Aragon front in protest to new Spanish Republic military policies. He says they went back to Barcelona and held 60,000 weapons from the Republic, refusing to give the weapons up or fight themselves. Orwell directly contradicts this 60,000 weapons story in "Homage." He argues it's simply communist propaganda, and the POUM in Barcelona more likely commanded not even 1,000 weapons.

I think their views are somewhat reconcilable, as it seems the POUM did much more to help rather than hurt the war effort, as they had thousands of troops protecting the Aragon front throughout the war, and only a small portion left (Preston says hundreds left). At the same time, the POUM was pro-revolution, according to Orwell and Preston, while the majority of the Spanish Republic wasn't, so if the Fascists were defeated, there may have afterward been a conflict between the POUM and the Spanish Republic.

From what I've read and listened about the janissaries, they were individuals captured as slaves from Christian Europe (often from Orthodox Greece or the rest of the Balkans). Somewhere along the process, the vast majority of them become perfectly good Ottoman Muslims, loyal to the Sultan--never mind their past lives and heritage. When they inevitably fought for the Ottoman Empire against Christian rival powers along the western frontier, what were their thoughts about their ethnic and religious (ex-)cousins, and how did those "cousins" see them? Were there any recorded instances of janissaries reverting to their old heritage--or at the very least experiencing mental conflict--after confronting such cognitive dissonance?

I was thinking about the value of products like butter, cheese, and milk and how much more valuable they might have been in ancient times with less dairy production. I tried googling an answer but couldn't find much on the topic. I'm also interested to know what physical changes have been made through breeding, evolution, etc. in the cow over time and how an ancient cow might compare to one today on a typical dairy farm.

[deleted]

Every year for Christmas I've been using a cookie recipe printed the first time in 1837 others that can be traced back to at least the 15th century. I know that widely used plants can die out (like the Gros Michel banana) and have to be replaced with a different variety, and a couple of years ago I saw the painting of a water melon painted by Giovanni Stanchi in the 17th century and images of other plants that showed how changed they have become over the centuries. Since then I have been wondering if my cookies really taste like the ones they munched 500 years ago? Have there been similar changes to the spices associated with Christmas? I especially wondered about vanilla, because the older recipes just says one pod, but are we talking the same size and amount of seeds inside as your average mall bought vanilla pod today?

I will also very much appreciate answers not specifically linked to Christmas.

To preface this, I am a high school history teacher. Currently, we’re working on Japan, 1932-1941. One of my students, as a final project, wants to look at the US oil embargo of Japan (and the Export Control Act of 1940 probably).

Is there a book or three they could look at? We have some primary sources (diplomatic statements mostly), but she’s looking for a few explanations/overviews, if possible.

Recommendations?

Vulcanized rubber was invented in the 1830s, but before that, what was used to make the soles of a good, solid pair of boots? If a farmer or wanderer needed a good pair of work/hunting boots, what was used to make it durable? Layered leather? Wood? I imagine it changed from place to place as well.

Why didn’t the UK and France declare war on the Soviets, even though they garenteed the independence of Poland?

Aside from controlling the Suez Canal what objectives were the Germans trying to accomplish by invading and controlling so much of North Africa?

[deleted]

After seeing ads for the movie about the capture of Eichmann, I picked up a (lay audience) book about the capture of Eichmann, Hunting Eichmann by Neal Bascomb. At several points, both the author and those who spoke with him emphasize the importance of the capture and trial of Eichmann in raising awareness of the Holocaust, both inside and outside of Israel. How cognizant of the Holocaust was the general public prior to his capture and trial? Were survivor accounts of the Holocaust uncommon prior to the trial?

I understand that Russia wanted to "fix" their border with Finland and expand the distance between Leningrad and the Finnish border. But that border was built 2 decades earlier. As far as I can tell, there wasn't any time sensitive threat that required immediate military action in November of '39.

Why did they choose to invade right as the winter started to kick up? It doesn't seem like they had much to lose by waiting a few months and invading in the spring.

When and why did gold become so valuable and culturally meaningful almost universally? Now we use gold for a lot of things that go beyond aesthetics, e.g. electronics, but that's only in the past 100 or so years.

Reasons I can think of:

- aesthetics (so biological? Is this a remnant of our fish ancestors attraction to shiny things?)

- malleability (which makes it shit for weapons/armor unless used solely as plating and not the core)

- longevity (I could see how later civs would discover old gold shit and be amazed, but what about the OG civs?)

- medical properties (ancient peoples would fucking eat anything as medicine, but I believe this followed and didn't necessarily originate gold's value/meaning)

- aliens

- trial and error, i.e. experimentation (someone looking for a solution to a problem and gold solved it)

Any thoughts?

When I think if dragons I think of reptilian creatures with wings, four legs, tails and the ability to breath fire. If I talked to a viking about dragons would he have the same image in his head?

I'm reading Nigel Rodgers' Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire and he says in reference to the "misleading" accounts of Christian persecution:

"Rome in fact was normally tolerant of almost all religions provided they did not disturb public order." Pg 258

I am familiar with the more extreme, institutionalized persecutions of Nero and Diocletian, and have always been under the impression that Christians were generally disrespected throughout the Empire from AD64 to AD313.

Is there truth to Rodgers' statement discounting the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire?