[deleted]

As a modern audience, "rockets" and "bombs bursting in air" tends to evoke modern missiles or grenades, which didn't exist in Key's time. Is this a description of cannon fire with a great deal of creative license, or did they actually explode in the air with red light?

I am ten pages deep into Google and the search seems fruitless

I found one pdf of the chronicles in Old English, however, I realized that it was an ecclesiastical copy, meaning that all entries that are not related to religion were removed for brevity. Does anyone know of a free copy of the original version I could find?

Thanks

My friend briefly mentioned in passing that a General (Xu?) was reticent towards opening fire on Chinese citizens and spoke of directly refusing to follow them. Is this just hearsay? Did anything like this actually happen? Was there any sign that political or military leadership were divided regarding how to handle the protests?

I'm from the Philippines, and I've always found it quite odd when the Philippine American War is referred to as the 'Philippine Insurrection'. My question is, which term for the conflict is more widely accepted by most historians? Second, why is it so?

By that I mean, did the bombings change the geography of the area, in terms of rivers or mountains or any other feature?

I just watched a pretty great video the other day about how Hitler basically couldn't have ever 'won' World War 2 because Germany had no gasoline, British blockades on trade prevented them from buying any for the most part, and as a result Hitler couldn't bring to bear his massive Panzer army and said army was constantly stalling for lack of supplies. So was Hitler just deluded or way over confident in his ability to bring the powers of the world to their knees and getting everyone to sign the "Germany rules the world" treaty of 1944 or was there some other kind of more diplomatic goal he could have been going for where he wasn't trying to totally take over Russia and Britain or anywhere/one else but force them to give certain concessions rather than prolong a war that would hurt everyone else more than it would hurt Germany?

I just can't understand how Hitler could overlook something so obvious as running out of extremely important strategic resources he couldn't reliably replace.

We have official Nazi documents on the gas vans (SS-Untersturmführer August Becker's 1942 letter, Willy Just's 1942 memo). especially the gas van of Chelmno extermination camp (the Lodz Ghetto administration 1944 document), we have documents that prove beyond any doubt the Nazis used carbon monoxide to gas euthanasia patients (the 1942 Schwenninger document) and we have documents that show millions of people were deported to these camps and did not go further East or back West (the 1942 Hofle Telegram). However, I'm finding it difficult to find documents pertaining to the workings of the gas chambers. Do you historians have any sources I can read up on?

I would much appreciate any help on finding both a historian’s view on the effects of Wilhelm II on German nationalism, from 1888 to 1918 and any sources to support it? I need to compare it to that of Bismarck’s influence.

Any information on comparison between the start of the war and the end of the war would be useful to see a change in attitude or simply any information regarding German nationalism and unity as a result of the war. Thanks.

Hello everybody,

I'm hoping to get my head around the Russian Revolution.
Can anyone recommend any good books on the subject? Or biographies of the main players?

Thanks in advance!

It has always seemed strange to me that there was not even one sole Lincoln supporter in the South willing to vote for him. Is there any evidence that suggests foul play?

I recently watched landgirls, and during an episode one of the men in the Airforce goes AWOL after he is returned in active service they send word saying that he is being assigned as a rear gunner for his punishment.

Was this a normal punishment?

I a few questions to which I haven't really seen clear answers. I'd really appreciate anything which answers these; even if it is only some reading suggestions which addresses them directly.

1. I've seen some claims from the "myths and facts" ilk that the British Mandate for Palestine intended for Transjordan to be designated for the Arabs of Palestine, and Palestine for the Jews. I haven't seen any sources for this in any books I've read on the subject though (or if I did, I didn't take note of it and forgot). Is there any validity or source to this claim?

2. I've seen supporters of the settlements claim they are not illegal because the British Mandate gave Jews the right to settle in all of Palestine, and the Mandate remains legally binding. Is there anything in the Mandate which actually suggests this (it doesn't look like it does, but I'm not a lawyer)? That's also the argument used by Israel's legal advisors, if I recall correctly. How does that coincide with the White Papers, Peel Commission, partition plans etc, which either clarify that not all of Palestine is meant for the Jews, raise the possibility of partition, to have the West Bank under the rule of Transjordan etc?

3. Supporters of the occupation (or those who deny that it's an occupation) also say that there wasn't a sovereign power over East Jerusalem and the West Bank in 67, so it isn't an occupation, nor illegal for Israel to allow civilians to populate the area. But didn't Jordan annex EJ and WB, even though it wasn't recognized by most nations (though the UK did recognize its validity)? Does Israel actually have a valid claim here, even though the international community which rejected Jordanian sovereignty over these areas also deems Israeli occupation illegal (and Gaza as still being occupied due to Israeli control over the sea border, air space, and citizen registry)?

Thanks for any responses.

My Dad believes that breeding of African slaves has resulted in some of the black genetic superstars we see today(Shaq, Mike Tyson, Serena Willams etc). And contributes to the racial skew of sports in the US like basketball and American football.

Is there any evidence of genetic differences between African descendants of slaves and Africans that remained in Africa? I realize this is quite an open question but any related information of genetic profiles of Africans and the eugenics of humans or practices of slave owners would be cool.

It feels really messed up to intentionally breed humans and brings the Nazi mentality to mind. But It doesn't seem unrealistic that the slave population could have been significantly altered over a few generations.

Could someone please recommend me a book or two that examines whether and how the Christian / Catholic church became heir to the Western Roman Empire after the sack of Rome?

In particular, I’m hoping for current academic sources, free from pro or anti Christian / Catholic bias.