So, I've been sitting on this for awhile. The other day one of my professors (who wasn't a history professor, if that means anything) said that Winston Churchill was one of history's greatest mass murderers. I know his policies on empire were pretty traditionalist in terms of power and possessions & British colonial history wasn't exactly stellar in some areas but could he really be counted up there with people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Seemed like a ridiculous thing to say imo

Francis Scott Key's Wikipedia page has two interesting paragraphs pertaining to his view of slavery. Under 'Slavery and the American Colonization Society" it reads: "

Key publicly criticized slavery's cruelties, so much that after his death a newspaper editorial stated "So actively hostile was he to the peculiar institution that he was called 'The Nigger Lawyer' .... because he often volunteered to defend the downtrodden sons and daughters of Africa. Mr. Key convinced me that slavery was wrong—radically wrong."In June 1842, Key attended the funeral of William Costin, a free, mixed race resident who had challenged Washington's surety bond laws."

The article notes he also founded the American Colonization Society, which is described on its Wikipedia page as a "coalition... who supported abolition of slavery and believed blacks would face better chances for freedom in Africa than in the United States."

However, in the very next section the page discusses his opposition to abolitionism. These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other without providing any nuance, and I am interested in understanding what specifically Key's views were.

I'd always been under the impression that the attrition of the four carrier battles of 1942 was what killed off the IJN's experienced aviators. From The Conquering Tide I learned though that Japan continued to feed experienced carrier pilots into Rabaul long after the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. How significant were those losses in the gutting of the IJN's pilot strength? If the Japanese had preserved their remaining carrier pilots after the Guadalcanal carrier battles ended could they have had a significantly more potent force by the time the US attacked the Marianas?

I'm looking at the histories of the beginning of WWI and there is of course a focus on notes exchanged between governments, ultimatums, and the rest. My question is how much of this is common knowledge in the street, and how much lag was there.

Taking Belgium as an example, on the 2nd or 3rd, are there radio or newspaper stories about the German ultimatum? When does Joe Walloon in Brussels read that Luxembourg is occupied? Is the Belgian government's refusal made public when it is given to the German minister, or does it become obvious later? Would a visitor to Liege being seeing preparations all week, or only once the General Leman's troops arrive?

Mobilization orders are given in every country - but how are they transmitted to Pierre in the street? Obviously, modern telephone trees are impractical, but it seems that sending hundreds of thousands (millions in some cases) of telegraph recall notices would also be impossible. Does it just get published in newspapers and announced on radios, and all these reservists already know where to go and what to do? Did the Great Powers practice mobilization regularly in order to ensure the timing was right? What happened if a reserve officer or NCO was visiting his family on the other side of the country and couldn't make it to the mobilization point in time to catch the train? This seems to be most problematic in Germany since mobilization also involves commandeering most of the trains and rail lines for precisely timed troop movements. It seems like you read about troops moving within hours of the order being given to mobilize.

All the websites and books I've seen give a pretty good idea what the first week of August looked like for governments, generals, and the troops once they got to their staging areas for the attack. What about everyone else?

Democracies rarely have famines of any significance (but their colonies or other unrepresented dependencies do). So should the famines of the USSR under Lenin/Stalin and the PRC under Mao be attributed to specifically communist rule or to dictatorial rule in general? That is, were there massive famines in other highly-populated non-communist dictatorships (like Pakistan, Brazil, or Nigeria during their periods of autocratic rule) -- or did the communist system itself produce them all out of proportion to other types of autocratic rule? I ask only because I'm trying to evaluate the accuracy of statistics attributing massive numbers of deaths to communism in particular (see, for example, the folks over at Victims of Communism, who argue that more than 100 million were killed by communism over the last century, a claim that rises or falls based on the attribution of famine deaths to communism).

So, I will run an Ars Magica RPG set in scandinavia, aiming for realtively good historical accuracy.

Story takes place in 1220, Norway, the area of Sognefjord. Mostly, but other areas of scandinavia may come to play.

After some web scrounging I find most sites say something along the lines of; Norwegian population converted later than people in Denmark or Sweden, and Christianity came to dominate Norway during the 12th century, but that's really unspecific.

So, in the given age and area, how common was it for ordinary people and / or for people in power to be christians? How common was it to be publicly christian but secretly follow the old faith? How common were churches and other places of Christian worship? Did religious leaders of the old faith still exist, and if they did, how much power did they have?

Thanks to all who answer.

PS: Any recomendations of a source that you think is very good and details the everyday life in the place and age are appreciated.

I'm aware that in 1469 Spain was unified under the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand. But it was still seen as separate kingdoms of Castile and Aragon. What I would like to know is when did they began referring to the kingdom as Spain? Had the region always been called that and so they adopted it? And was there a document or decree that named it so? I'm looking for the origins of the country's naming.

Thanks in advance.

I know that ancient Pharaohs were regarded to be god-like and connections between the people and their gods. Were Pharaohs as late as Cleopatra (the last) still held in such high regard? If not, when did this stop being official practice?

My partner is currently doing a graduate degree in history at McMaster University. My partner is interested in focusing on witch-hunts and witch trials, and as such, a professor had briefly mentioned something about a witch trial that had occurred in Lunenburg, NS around 1920

I was wondering if anyone knows about this and has any supporting documentation that mentions this?

If not, I was wondering what are some of the last witch trials on record that have taken place in Canada? (With a particular focus on Nova Scotia). Thanks!

Hi all, I am looking for some recommendations on books about Ancient Egypt. Anything from religion, the pharaohs, to social aspects. I have an MA in history so I looking for something a little more in depth but don't know where to start!

Hello! I'm taking my first college courses this year (dual credit) and have to write a five-page paper on a topic that interests me! I have chosen the life of Olaudah Equiano and need two primary resources as well as two secondary resources. I have never had to write a paper of this size (especially for this type) and am sort of at a loss for resources. My main trouble is finding a primary source other than The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano. Is anybody aware of another primary source I could use? Any help would be awesome! And any tips on how to go about this project would be great as well! Thanks, guys! :D