Let's say Ancient Egypt, since it's where the subject of grave robbery tends to come up most often. It seems like a lot of graves were broken into and raided of treasures in antiquity. But you're some regular Joe who now has some really valuable (and possibly recognisable) goods on your hands. How do you make money from them without being noticed? Was there a black market? Did they just try and melt down precious metals and remove jewels and so on?

Just a note: I don’t deny the holocaust, I know that it happened, these are actual questions that I hope someone can answer.

1. Are there any records that show how long the gas was put into the chamber? How long could one last?

2. I’ve seen pictures of gas chambers being little better than wooden shacks, is this true? If so, did the Nazis have so much of this gas that sealing the chamber wasn’t needed?

3. How is this gas made? I know it’s Zyclon-B, but I don’t know much about it.

Thanks to anyone who answers any of these questions. Have a good day :)

I was thinking about this a few days ago but I couldn't find any difinitive answers from a Google search. As the title says, what is the first record of someone knowing some things were different in the other hemisphere? That the seasons were opposite, the sun was in the other direction etc.

How did they first explain it at the time? When did people really believe it and when did it become common accepted at truth? When did someone first figure out the explanation we use today?

Please don't feel obliged to answer all of these questions, just one of them or some type of information would be great. Thanks.

We all know in a general way that condoms were once made out of animal intestine and began to be made in rubber much later on, but how was this item developed, and how did it change?

It's sometimes claimed that the Arabs planned to expel/ethnically cleanse/commit genocide upon the Jews should they have succeeded in conquering Israel. Is this claim based on any scholarship? What do we know about actual Arab plans from contemporary evidence?

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that there is conservatism and right wingers in Europe. I’m fully aware of that.

But I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that America is comparatively much more religious, conservative, and fundamental than Europe. Why is this?

Also, what stopped them from deserting and rejoining their former kingdom or state?

From what I've read, the vast majority of Egyptian tombs were raided by grave robbers long ago, which is why the discovery of Tutankhamon's grave was so extraordinary, as it still contained the original treasures. But who actually did all the grave robbing? When did the practice begin, and what happened to the stolen treasure?

I know there are some pub like buildings that served food in Pompeii but is there any evidence that is older or from a different place?

So i'm studying British political history and when i read through the events at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century it seemed to me that they could be related to the rise of capitalism and the growth in the class consciousness of the working class. I tried to look online for any historians who argue this and couldn't find any so i'm wondering why this is such an invalid interpretation. Ill run through my interpretation below and hopefully someone an tell my how i'm misunderstanding or misinterpreting the situation.

• in the mid to late 19th century, the liberal party represented the interests of the capitalists through economically liberal policies while the conservatives represented the landed elite.
• Towards the end of the 19th century, the landed elite were increasingly irrelevant and decreasingly powerful. This can be seen in the declining numbers of them in parliament and the rising number of new MPs and peers who came from industrial backgrounds. Owners of big businesses.
• as the landed elite were not as much of as force, the Conservative party came instead to represent big business and the bourgeois middle classes. This can be seen in the "villa toryism" of the late 19th century. I also read somewhere that Bonar Law did a lot to make this change to the conservative party.
• the liberals losing the basis for their support fell into disarray and were not able to recover until 1906
• When they did recover, they only did so by representing the lower classes through progressive reforms - new liberalism
• It was liberals not labour who were able to represent the lower classes because labour was not only very new but had its growth stunted by things like the osbourne judgement and party funding issues.
• Once Labour managed to get on it's feet they were able to start capturing the vote of the working classes enfranchised in 1884.
• the reason the liberals did not recover from their wartime disaster is because labour was now representing the left wing opposition to the conservatives. Especially given the universal male suffrage that was granted in 1918
• Landed elites were no longer relevant to the economy and the conservatives represented capitalist interest against the socialist interest of the newly politically conscious working classes. There was little place for the liberal party in this new order

I'm not advocating any kind of teleological marxist history - i'm not saying this shift from a industrial capitalist vs landed elite struggle to a socialist proletariate vs industrial capitalist struggle was bound to happen. It just seems like it did happen.

I'm not incredibly knowledgeable on the subject but this is just how events seemed to read to me. Maybe there are historians who argue this but i was not able to find them. What am i missing in my version of events? Why is such a simplification irrelevant or not possible?

thank you

I ask this because, in the book "Eichmann in Jerusalem" by Hannah Arendt, she claims that the international court was no more than a victor's court, citing the lack of prosecution of the american atomic bombardment as an example, claiming it's a war crime.

Also, it does seem americans in general live in a bubble where they don't consider the attacks crimes against humanity or war crimes, whilst other countries have the opposite prevailing sentiment. This surely is the case for where I'm from, at least.

But I don't want to enter a discussion on whether it was or not, just ask if there was any serious discussion and blowback among international jurists

I remember he was the last (or only) President to speak English as a second language, since he grew up in a rural Dutch community. Are there any records of him not sounding like a native English speaker?

I have scoured the internet and about every historically accurate website out there on Condottieri, better known as the hired armies of Northern Italy from the middle ages to renaissance. I have figured out a good number of the main Condottiero and historical references to their role in shaping the Italian City States and the Papacy. What I am lacking is any references to their military structure, their condotta (or contract), how much power they are allowed to enact representing a city-state, what weapons they used, what armor they wore, what they did outside waging battles, did they have a coat of arms, military tactics (got some comments from Machievelli but nothing specific), or basically anything that would give a deeper understanding to who these people were?

I find it strange they played such an important part in one of the most important places of the renaissance but they are grossly overshadowed by the Templars, French, Germans, and Spanish countries.

I was looking up the demographics of Palestine and saw that the Jewish population went from being "only a handful [prior to 1850]" to being 32% of 1,900,000 in 1948.

I'm not sure how much of this population growth is generally attributed to immigration and how much to natural causes (birth rates, etc.), but my question is the following:

What are some similar examples of very sharp increases in demographic representation (almost 30 points in a century)? How unique was the instance of Palestine?

Thanks

Watching a Ann Frank documentary and it was mentioned that if her father had informed the state that he had served,his family would have been protected. Is this true ?

For those not aware, in most Western countries, the color Blue is associated with right-leaning/conservative political parties, while the color Red is associated with left-leaning/liberal politcal parties. Yet, in the U.S., this is the opposite, with the conservative Republicans being associated with Red and the liberal Democrats being associated with Blue.

What is the historical context for this difference?

How do we know what they did?

What was the reaction when people found out?

Did they actually have an effect on Kaczynski and turn him into the Unabomber?

I read that some of what they did was sexually abuse children? Is this also true? If so how have I not heard of this?

But yeah anything you guys can tell me about MKUltra would be great thanks.