[deleted]

After reading debates and stuff, I still fail to see the point in affirming that "feudalism never existed" and it "should be dumped", and my opinion on the subject is very low.

Luckily when I don't understand something or I find something silly I tend to think that I am failing to understand something, so I will leave my very bad opinion aside.

I have a very basic question, which I hope is the basic layman question. Let's see if we're all on the same page:

• Did gradually emerge

• From an early somewhat informal/arbitrary stage all the way to a later formalised/systematic stage

• From the post-Roman-Empire Barbaric Kingdoms all the way to at least the second half of the 15th century

• In at least but not limited to most of the European West (let's say today's England, France, Germany, Northern Italy, Spain)

• A system, that we call with the word "feudalism"

• That created a common social, economical and political landscape/background

• Based on the rewarded (e.g. privileges) and exacting (e.g. duties) personal allegiance/loyalty/service between people?

I understand that it's a very borderline thread for this sub, but I'm very confused and I've seen a lot of confusion as well, and I hope it'll be somehow useful to clarify the matter.

From what i have read it was a joint project between West Germany and USA to make some some seemingly over-engineered MBT. But why was it cancelled? It seemed fairly interesting and promising project, albeit with a sizeable amount of problems, that surely could have been worked out during the years?

To rectify the title a bit, I am also aware of the myriad other puddings the British eat, a heap of which do not come under the sweet dessert umbrella (yum). So, maybe a better thing to ask about is, how come that for example in the U.S or in here, which happens to be Czech Republic, does pudding only refer to the thick and soft, slightly wobbly thingy (I'm not a professional dictionary writer)?

Is anyone able to provide evidence of the claim that the British (I'm being intentionally broad in looking for really any evidence) declared Terra Nullius concerning Australia as a fundamental part of their decision to colonise the country.

When I say evidence, I'm specifically talking about primary sources. Documents of the time, especially 18th century documents. However, anything prior to 1975 will be appreciated as, through my research it appears that the British never declared Terra Nullius and that the terminology was first used by the lawyer Paul Coe (1977) after the United Nations used the term regarding the Western Sahara in 1975.

This is a foundational teaching in Australian education (that Terra Nullius is a founding doctrine of the colonisation of Australia) and yet I can find no evidence to support this prior to 1975, you would think a founding doctrine such as this would be littered in founding documents (such as the 1835 Declaration of Governor Burke) but it doesn't seem to be. (Also I'm aware that that declaration isn't an 18th century document but it's an example a lot of textbooks/websites I've read/visited give of terra nullius being declared)

Please help!

I going to let this known first: I am NOT saying all Japanese people are bad or evil. However, we need discuss how the Japanese government denies some of the war crimes they have committed during WW2. Yes, people of Japan have been convicted of being war criminals, but based on how Abe Shinzo gave service at the Yaskuni, a shrine that honors some Class A War Criminals, the government does not show any signs of repentance. There is also the issue with comfort women. The Japanese military were known for forcing many Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese etc women into becoming sex slaves for the soldiers. Even worse, they raped premature women and forced an abortion by cutting the stomach if any of them became pregnant. However, Japan has never issued a full on, proper apology on this issue. Unit 731, a military unit which performed vivisection (dissection of a live person) and other brutal human experiements, was granted immunity by the US government. No significant process of acknowledgement has been provided by the Japanese government due to "lack of evidence". Another example can be with Battleship Island, which forced Korean into hard labor in the coal mines. The island became a UNESCO Heritage Site due to its contributions to the boost of Japanese economy, under the condition that it acknowledges the forced labor. To this day, there is no hint of acknowledgement on the island or on its website. Furthermore, Japan is failing to educate their students on the full history, with the textbooks not going into details of the war crimes. This is very different from Germany, where the government built museums and memorials to educate their citizens of the wrongdoings if the Nazis during the Holocaust. I believe that this issue is very serious and needs to be addressed. What to you all think?

Edit: there is also the issue with the Liancourt Rocks aka Dokdo in Korean and Takeshita in Japanese but I'll leave that for later.

It seems to contradict the Father Tongue hypothesis in this case.

I have already bought and read:

Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front 1941-1942 and '43-45 by Robert Forczyk (I really enjoyed these ones and they seemed well sourced.)

Red Army Tanks of WWII by Tim Bean and Will Fowler (this one had quite a few mistakes and misidentified an image of an ISU-122 as an IS-2)

Nightwitches by Bruce Myles

Flyboys by James Bradley

Deadly Sky by John C. McManus

As you can see I've been leaning towards literature about the Eastern Front because that is the main area of interest to me. I find both the European and Pacific Theaters fascinating, but I've been having trouble finding books to read that I can trust to be pretty accurate and unbiased. The books I do have I found by walking into a bookstore and picking them off the shelves which is not a great strategy for accurate learning or my wallet.

Edit: Also, if anyone has any books about the Normadie-Niemen unit of Free French pilots on the Eastern Front I would greatly appreciate info on them. They are the most interesting unit of the whole war to me.

[deleted]

By the end of the 19th Century Argentina was receiving a large amount of immigration. In terms of size, it was one of the largest countries in the world with a lot of natural resources, and some of the best farmland in the world to support a large population.

So in Bernard Cornwells series "The Last Kingdom", a Christian son of the Earl of Bebbanburg is taken hostage, raised as a Dane/Viking in Danelaw and eventually becomes an advisor to King Alfred in Wessex. The series of books heavily paints the struggle as a conflict between Viking pagans and Christian Anglo-Saxons.

I see four options.

1. The conflict was about maintaining England as Christian.

2. The conflict was about maintaining England as Anglo-Saxon and religion was used as a pretense.

3. The conflict was about maintaining England as Anglo-Saxon and religious scholars at the time (and some of their only literate people) framed ethno-nationalist conflict as a struggle against pagan interlopers.

4. The books are a work of fiction and as such, Cornwell injected religious themes into an otherwise secular conflict.

Which seems to be the most probable based on recent research?

This is a pretty specific question, which is why it includes all of medieval Britain.

I'm aware that farmer would keep cats to get rid of vermin, but would someone own a cat just for companionship? Did cats ever populate monasteries with monks?