The founding of the PLO is obviously a major event in the history of Palestine/Israel, but I'm finding very little online about it. All I can tell is that it was founded by the Arab League in 1964 for the "liberation of Palestine". Israel had taken a ton of land from the Arab league after 1948, and would take even more after the six-day war in 1967. What is the evidence that the PLO was meant as an organization to fight for an independent Palestine, rather than being a tool of the Arab League to retake land? After all, "liberation" from Israel does not necessarily mean liberation from Arab League control. Otherwise, why did the Arab League create the PLO in the first place?

Thank you very much!

I ask as the famous Into The Jaws Of Death photos demonstrates the bunkers much further away.

Why didn’t they realise that spending $2 billion on making an atomic bomb would be far better than the useless v-2 rocket program? Is it because they didn’t think it was possible since they considered it to be Jewish science? Is it because many of the nuclear scientists in Germany were Jewish and had fled to the United States?

The Civil War at one point during its time became unpopular, and Abraham Lincoln's tenure in the White House was shaky leading up to his re-election due to troubles in defeating the South.

I was musing on Operation Downfall from WW2, and it got me wondering, for all of the anti-war sentiment in the Union, if there were any serious alternative exit plans that saw a cessation of slavery AND reunification of the North and South? Also, were there any serious considerations for just letting the South secede?

It seems strange that many societies developed names for the planets/mythological gods, but following the Roman era, they became solidified. Is this just because Christianity has had such a powerful influence on our culture? Or is there more to it?

Throughout time many nations took on to colonize many areas. Examples being Africa colonized by major European powers like Germany, France, and The United Kingdom around the 1870s to the 1900s and past. North America was also colonized in around 1607. South America was conquered by Spain and Portugal for the most part. There's more examples but I'd go on for too long.

As the colonies stuck around the natives were able to take on modernized stuff like guns, cavalry, sometimes explosives, ect. So my question is basically, did the colonialist take on any technology or any traditions of their ways? Was there any thing majorly noteworthy that proved useful to the colonialists?

I've always imagined slave ownership to be a pretty ubiquitous thing back in those days. But a random youtube comment made me think otherwise, that it was just the ultra-wealthy. Did the common man own slaves back then or was it just the upper-class people, i.e. the Elon Musks and Warren Buffets of the old days?

When the British ruled over South Asian countries e.g. India, Sri Lanka, Maldives etc., did they actively attempt to convert the local populations to Christianity or was their motive purely for land and trade opportunities?

I can’t find evidence of whether the support was militaristic or logistical

Do you ever think the stories we are taught about previous civilizations could be completely inaccurate? Studying history is something I've struggled with since I was a child because I feel that even though it is in the past, the story is constantly changing. What if historians, misread a certain hieroglyphic, or tried to explain it with a word that we have not yet invented? What if the old texts that we discover were dictated by liars who only showed the story they wanted to see? Currently our everyday news, (which will soon become history) is told in two entirely different lights. Thankfully, we have billions of people who share their personal stories everyday, so there is a possibility that the future can figure it out for themselves. But where is the evidence of the people who lived back then, and why do many teachers not reinforce this belief that history is not as plain as the black & white letters in our text books.

I know most of them ended up in plantations in Brazil or the Caribbean, but did Europeans bring slaves back to Europe? Either as a household slave or laborer? I assume free labor was still desireable in Europe as much as it was in the colonies.

Hi, I am looking for books about the Holy Roman Empire during the 1500s, specifically about how it functioned as an empire and how much power the emperor actually had. The more detailed the better!

Thanks!

This Convention was signed by 196 different countries whom agreed to follow the rules yet it seems recently that certain Governments have made clear violations to the rules that were set out, such as Israel and Syria and nothing has happened. In the past have States been punished for violating this treaty and if so How severe were the punishments?

[deleted]

Any experts on Gallowglass mercenaries recommmend any books on the subject?

[deleted]

Bonus question: do historians have any ideas as to why sailing has been such a superstitious activity throughout history?

I’ve been madly curious about how Native American languages seem so much more diverse than Old World languages, even though the Old World has a much larger population. Is it due to greater interconnection of the Old World? Is it due to how there’s many more writing systems in the Old World?

A little about me first of all. I'm Canadian, graduated with a BA in history from the University of British Columbia. My grades were mediocre. I'm currently living in Beijing, teaching AP European history and comparative government at an elite public high school.

I recently got accepted to the MSc in history program via distance learning at the University of Edinburgh, and I'm looking to go on to a PhD after, with two preconditions: it has to be a 3-year program (so, UK/Australia/Hong Kong/Singapore or the like) with funding (and I'll be an international student, so not eligible for all funding). I'm 30 right now and mid-career, so doing a long, expensive PhD just isn't worth it.

I've been in contact with the graduate advisor at Edinburgh, and she said that with mediocre undergrad performance, it's unlikely that I'll get funding. She said I'll need "an outstanding research proposal and superlative results for the MSc."

My question is, what exactly do those things entail? And what more can I do to maximize my chances of getting accepted to that program, or any other 3-year history PhD that will fund me?